United Nation City State

[David2004]

Create three new City States for the United Nation support in international operation. There should be three of the United Nation City State (UNCS) created around the world, one in Africa, Asia and in South America. The proposed host countries will summit their offer to the United Nations for consideration. The three UNCS will function as part of the United Nations being the home bases for the International Peacekeeping Forces and support operations. Each UNCS will have an international airport, warehouses, and training facilities and housing for United Nations operations.

The approximate area of each of the UNCS will be 25 square miles. With the following factors in consideration, the proximity to other nations and international waterways, and the mother nation support in the future operations. The creation of the UNCS will be a trophy for the mother nations. Creating many new jobs and opportunities putting it on the international map.

The main purpose of the three UNCS will be support the international work of the United Nations. UNCS will be the home base for the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces as well as the training centers for United Nations operations. Governments from around the world could send their police and military personal for United Nations Certification as Reserved International Peacekeeping Personnel. The United Nations would maintain the fulltime United Nations Peacekeeper Forces.

All of the UNCS would have training programs in freshwater and sewer management, medical, policing, farming practices and government operation training programs with support training and operations being offered by non-profit NGO’s. The UNCS could be international home bases for some of the international non-profit NGO’s. The three UNCS would be run and operated under the United Nations Headquarters. All land in the UNCS will remain under the ownership and control of the United Nations with lease deals to operations and entities that are working in partnership or support in United Nations operations.

 

[Annie]

Create three new City States for the United Nation support in international operation. There should be three of the United Nation City State (UNCS) created around the world, one in Africa, Asia and in South America. The proposed host countries will summit their offer to the United Nations for consideration. The three UNCS will function as part of the United Nations being the home bases for the International Peacekeeping Forces and support operations. Each UNCS will have an international airport, warehouses, and training facilities and housing for United Nations operations.

The approximate area of each of the UNCS will be 25 square miles. With the following factors in consideration, the proximity to other nations and international waterways, and the mother nation support in the future operations. The creation of the UNCS will be a trophy for the mother nations. Creating many new jobs and opportunities putting it on the international map.

The main purpose of the three UNCS will be support the international work of the United Nations. UNCS will be the home base for the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces as well as the training centers for United Nations operations. Governments from around the world could send their police and military personal for United Nations Certification as Reserved International Peacekeeping Personnel. The United Nations would maintain the fulltime United Nations Peacekeeper Forces.

All of the UNCS would have training programs in freshwater and sewer management, medical, policing, farming practices and government operation training programs with support training and operations being offered by non-profit NGO’s. The UNCS could be international home bases for some of the international non-profit NGO’s. The three UNCS would be run and operated under the United Nations Headquarters. All land in the UNCS will remain under the ownership and control of the United Nations with lease deals to operations and entities that are working in partnership or support in United Nations operations.

UN is a non-starter. Failed organization. That's 'period' as in 'caput.'

 

[Mr.Conley]

Sounds expensive. I don't really see how it would be a positive for the UN either, just more stuff to pay for. All the possible uses you mention you could be just as easily accomplished without spending billions building an entire city in the middle of the third world.

UN is a non-starter. Failed organization. That's 'period' as in 'caput.'

Regardless, of whether the UN is a, "failed organization," most of the world holds it in very high regard. We should accept the political reality of the situation and use the UN to the extent possible.

 

[Annie]

Sounds expensive. I don't really see how it would be a positive for the UN either, just more stuff to pay for. All the possible uses you mention you could be just as easily accomplished without spending billions building an entire city in the middle of the third world.



Regardless, of whether the UN is a, "failed organization," most of the world holds it in very high regard. We should accept the political reality of the situation and use the UN to the extent possible.

No, we should deal with reality. You fail to envision the possiblity that the 'rest of the world' may be wrong. You really mean a very select number, which is what I'm laughing at.

 

[insein]

Create three new City States for the United Nation support in international operation. There should be three of the United Nation City State (UNCS) created around the world, one in Africa, Asia and in South America. The proposed host countries will summit their offer to the United Nations for consideration. The three UNCS will function as part of the United Nations being the home bases for the International Peacekeeping Forces and support operations. Each UNCS will have an international airport, warehouses, and training facilities and housing for United Nations operations.

The approximate area of each of the UNCS will be 25 square miles. With the following factors in consideration, the proximity to other nations and international waterways, and the mother nation support in the future operations. The creation of the UNCS will be a trophy for the mother nations. Creating many new jobs and opportunities putting it on the international map.

The main purpose of the three UNCS will be support the international work of the United Nations. UNCS will be the home base for the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces as well as the training centers for United Nations operations. Governments from around the world could send their police and military personal for United Nations Certification as Reserved International Peacekeeping Personnel. The United Nations would maintain the fulltime United Nations Peacekeeper Forces.

All of the UNCS would have training programs in freshwater and sewer management, medical, policing, farming practices and government operation training programs with support training and operations being offered by non-profit NGO’s. The UNCS could be international home bases for some of the international non-profit NGO’s. The three UNCS would be run and operated under the United Nations Headquarters. All land in the UNCS will remain under the ownership and control of the United Nations with lease deals to operations and entities that are working in partnership or support in United Nations operations.

Of all the cut and paste, hit and run jobs you've made, Dave, this is by far the dumbest ive seen. The UN cant handle a management of a hot dog stand in downtown NYC let alone be incharge of an entire city-state.

The only reason the UN exists is because we still fund it. Once we get a group of politicians that come to their senses, it will be a relic of History as the USA will stop flushing money down the toilet in that craptastic dwelling in NY.

 

[no1tovote4]

We should let an organization with a stunning record of corruption make executive decisions for all of the world?

I don't think so....

What a silly bunch of idiotic one-world garbage.

 

[David2004]

Sounds expensive. I don't really see how it would be a positive for the UN either, just more stuff to pay for. All the possible uses you mention you could be just as easily accomplished without spending billions building an entire city in the middle of the third world.



Regardless, of whether the UN is a, "failed organization," most of the world holds it in very high regard. We should accept the political reality of the situation and use the UN to the extent possible.

How to pay for the United Nation City State operations

International Crude Oil Export Tax (OET)
http://globalcrier.blogspot.com/2006/01/international-crude-oil-export-tax-oet.html

International Peace Keeping Forces (IPKF)
http://globalcrier.blogspot.com/2006/02/international-peace-keeping-forces.html

 

[no1tovote4]

How to pay for the United Nation City State operations

International Crude Oil Export Tax (OET)
http://globalcrier.blogspot.com/2006/01/international-crude-oil-export-tax-oet.html

International Peace Keeping Forces (IPKF)
http://globalcrier.blogspot.com/2006/02/international-peace-keeping-forces.html

LOL. Now, not only do you want them to have executive powers over other nations but taxation power as well? This is one of the most transparently corrupt organizations full of nepotism and simply direct bribery...

There is no way you are going to get a majority of the nations to accept such leadership. What a concept! It makes me laugh how gullible you must be to think that these people would do a good job as the leaders of the globe...

 

[Mr.Conley]

No, we should deal with reality. You fail to envision the possiblity that the 'rest of the world' may be wrong. You really mean a very select number, which is what I'm laughing at.

It doesn't matter if the rest of the world is wrong or not. As long as the rest of the world supports the UN, we are going to have to deal with it. Thats the, "reality."

How to pay for the United Nation City State operations

International Crude Oil Export Tax (OET)
http://globalcrier.blogspot.com/200...rt-tax-oet.html

International Peace Keeping Forces (IPKF)
http://globalcrier.blogspot.com/200...ing-forces.html

A tax on oil EXPORTS!?!?!!!!!

Thats crazy. It's one thing to put a tax at the end on certain, unnessicary uses of oil, but it's a whole other horse to tax a nations exports. Not only is that unfair to nationd for exporting a profitable resource, but b it would hurt everyone who uses oil for genuinely nessicary activites.

Besides, I can't even imagine how irrevicably the globe would be altered if the UN had the power to tax international trade.

Plus there's the fact that our Constitution explicitly prohibits taxes on exports. The moment the UN adopted this tax, the Supreme Court would declare our membership unconstitutional and that would be the end of the United Nations.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It doesn't matter if the rest of the world is wrong or not. As long as the rest of the world supports the UN, we are going to have to deal with it. Thats the, "reality."



.

Yes. Corruption and dishonesty might be misunderstood goodness. If enough people think 2+2=5 then it might just be. The extent of your liberal brain damage is worse than we though.

I believe we fund most of the U.N. stupidity. If we pull funds, it's over for illconceived wet dream of watery brained, lie believing, utopianists.

 

[Said1]

It doesn't matter if the rest of the world is wrong or not. As long as the rest of the world supports the UN, we are going to have to deal with it. Thats the, "reality."

Right now, the UN is akin to the League of Nations at the onset of WWII. Useless, spineless, corrupt etc, etc - the world's despots know this.

If the most decisive part of an organization such as the UN is unable to acutally "do" anything but issue statements voicing their "disapproval", what's the point? Unless you'd rather follow along with the populace....bhaaaaaaa.

 

[musicman]

It doesn't matter if the rest of the world is wrong or not. As long as the rest of the world supports the UN, we are going to have to deal with it. Thats the, "reality."

Your statement assumes that human behavior is fixed; that people (and nations)do not adapt to changing realities - that the actions of the U.S. are irrelevant to the world's perception of the U.N.. This is clearly false, and you concede as much...

The moment the UN adopted this tax, the Supreme Court would declare our membership unconstitutional and that would be the end of the United Nations.

...in your own post.

You contradict yourself.

 

[David2004]

The United States Peace Core should be the model for the International Peace Core. It could be based in the United Nations City Nation as a separate institution from the United Nations. It could work hand in hand with the United Nations International Peacekeeping Forces on mission around the world. Only by directing more international resources to mission of peace rather than war will we have a different out come to the problems we face as people of the world. The United Nations annual budget is less than most states or nations it is more comparable to a large University or corporation.

Given the magnitude of responsibilities the United Nations has in the world. The United Nations does not have the resources or power to fulfill its mission and goals. By expanding the United Nations role in international hot spots the United States can down size its international military presents. With the United Nations tooled up for preventative actions then maybe fewer global hot spots will break into full-scale war. With the United Nations stronger in international global affairs it will help make the world a safer and better place for everyone to live.

The United Nations will not intervene in any nations internal affairs unless it is called on to do so by that nation or a mandate by a United Nations Security Council. There is no question that there are a number of super power nations in the world that can win a military war with any number of smaller nations. There is the question if they can win the peace. It is much more economical, practical and socially responsible to rebuild a nation before it is destroyed by war and chaos.

The International Peace Core will take on more humanitarian projects as a preventative measure cutting down on the numbers of global military conflicts. By working together with other nations our differences will become less as global living conditions improve for more people around the world. Then and only then we will have a safer and more secure world.

 

[dilloduck]

The United States Peace Core should be the model for the International Peace Core. It could be based in the United Nations City Nation as a separate institution from the United Nations. It could work hand in hand with the United Nations International Peacekeeping Forces on mission around the world. Only by directing more international resources to mission of peace rather than war will we have a different out come to the problems we face as people of the world. The United Nations annual budget is less than most states or nations it is more comparable to a large University or corporation.

Given the magnitude of responsibilities the United Nations has in the world. The United Nations does not have the resources or power to fulfill its mission and goals. By expanding the United Nations role in international hot spots the United States can down size its international military presents. With the United Nations tooled up for preventative actions then maybe fewer global hot spots will break into full-scale war. With the United Nations stronger in international global affairs it will help make the world a safer and better place for everyone to live.

The United Nations will not intervene in any nations internal affairs unless it is called on to do so by that nation or a mandate by a United Nations Security Council. There is no question that there are a number of super power nations in the world that can win a military war with any number of smaller nations. There is the question if they can win the peace. It is much more economical, practical and socially responsible to rebuild a nation before it is destroyed by war and chaos.

The International Peace Core will take on more humanitarian projects as a preventative measure cutting down on the numbers of global military conflicts. By working together with other nations our differences will become less as global living conditions improve for more people around the world. Then and only then we will have a safer and more secure world.

I assume you are aware that terrorists kill people who come in the name of peace?

 

[Mr.Conley]

Right now, the UN is akin to the League of Nations at the onset of WWII. Useless, spineless, corrupt etc, etc - the world's despots know this.

If the most decisive part of an organization such as the UN is unable to acutally "do" anything but issue statements voicing their "disapproval", what's the point? Unless you'd rather follow along with the populace....bhaaaaaaa.

The UN is exceedingly corrupt. It is one of the most inefficent and powerless organizations created in history. You are correct when stating as such. I agree with you. However, regardless of the problems within the United Nations, most of the rest of the world (eg Europe, China, India, Japan, Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, South Korea, etc.) support the UN. Unless we want to engender a lot of pointless bad will we should, if not nessicarily subjecting ourselves to the power of the UN, at least tacitly support the UN and use the organization to achieve what ends we may.

Your statement assumes that human behavior is fixed; that people (and nations)do not adapt to changing realities - that the actions of the U.S. are irrelevant to the world's perception of the U.N.. This is clearly false,

Thank you for stating the obvious, people change their positions. Given the continued support and respect the United Nations recieves globally, I highly doubt that the world will suddenly stop supporting the United Nations anytime within the next 5-10 years (barring, of course, some unseen, world-altering course of events).If you are implying that should the Unisted Sates decide to remove itself from the United Nations, the world would suddenly hate the organization, I disagree. While it would certainly make the UN almost irrelevant, probably leading to its eventual disbandment, I doubt the world will think less of the organization. If anything, I postulate that worldwide support for the United Nations would increase exponentially, that the world would idolize its corpse, declare any future catastrophes as the result of its disbandment, and villify the United States.

This is clearly false, and you concede as much...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Conley
The moment the UN adopted this tax, the Supreme Court would declare our membership unconstitutional and that would be the end of the United Nations.


...in your own post.

You contradict yourself.

Ok, obviously you misunderstood my post. First lets review my post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kathianne
No, we should deal with reality. You fail to envision the possiblity that the 'rest of the world' may be wrong. You really mean a very select number, which is what I'm laughing at.


It doesn't matter if the rest of the world is wrong or not. As long as the rest of the world supports the UN, we are going to have to deal with it. Thats the, "reality."

Quote:
Originally Posted by David2004
How to pay for the United Nation City State operations

International Crude Oil Export Tax (OET)
http://globalcrier.blogspot.com/200...rt-tax-oet.html

International Peace Keeping Forces (IPKF)
http://globalcrier.blogspot.com/200...ing-forces.html


A tax on oil EXPORTS!?!?!!!!!

Thats crazy. It's one thing to put a tax at the end on certain, unnessicary uses of oil, but it's a whole other horse to tax a nations exports. Not only is that unfair to nationd for exporting a profitable resource, but b it would hurt everyone who uses oil for genuinely nessicary activites.

Besides, I can't even imagine how irrevicably the globe would be altered if the UN had the power to tax international trade.

Plus there's the fact that our Constitution explicitly prohibits taxes on exports. The moment the UN adopted this tax, the Supreme Court would declare our membership unconstitutional and that would be the end of the United Nations.

As you can see, the first part of my post concerns Kathianne's statemnts about the UN. You respond to this section in the main part of your post. The second half concerns David2004's post about an oil export tax. In this section I state that such a tax would an unprecedented expansion of UN power, and unconsitutional. Because it would be unconstitutional, the US would be forced to withdraw from the organization, and without US support, the UN would lose what lose what relevancy it has left, and likely disband eventually. What you do is try take two obviously unrelated (except insofar as both deal with the United Nations) topics and present them as somehow related. As I have said, without US support the UN probably could not exist long; however, the world won't be happy about it.

 

[trobinett]

First of all, I don`t belive, that the world does respect the UN.

Second, most of what is being called "respect", is simply an emerging nation wanting to be recognized as a "player".

Even the most badly ran, and poorly organized emerging country knows` stupid when they see it, read UNITED NATIONS. NO ONE pay`s the little bit of attention to what the UN say`s.

The fact, that the UN can`t even lead by example, says` volume`s about their standing in the REAL world.

The fact, that our membership is still active, is a puzzlement to me. :scratch:

 

[CSM]

I suspect that the rest of the world's support for the UN rests on the fact that it is a convenient tool for bashing the US. If they really did support the UN why is only one country of the 160+ paying 22% or more for its support?

There is no way in hell the UN should be made the Supreme Government of the Federated States of Earth. That is exactly what they would become once the power to tax ANYTHING was granted to the UN.

What is proposed at the beginning of this thread is pure idealism without regard for reality.

 

[musicman]

Thank you for stating the obvious, people change their positions.

Wow - someone's a little teste this morning, isn't he?

Given the continued support and respect the United Nations recieves globally, I highly doubt that the world will suddenly stop supporting the United Nations anytime within the next 5-10 years (barring, of course, some unseen, world-altering course of events).

That's because the U.N. retains some semblance of relevancy - owing, of course, to the good graces of the American taxpayer.

If you are implying that should the Unisted Sates decide to remove itself from the United Nations, the world would suddenly hate the organization, I disagree.

Well, thank God that A) I said nothing of the kind, and B) it has nothing to do with the topic at hand anyway!

You have manufactured this "implication" out of whole cloth - and now seek to use it as a means of misdirecting the conversation toward some notion of "world happiness":

While it would certainly make the UN almost irrelevant, probably leading to its eventual disbandment, I doubt the world will think less of the organization. If anything, I postulate that worldwide support for the United Nations would increase exponentially, that the world would idolize its corpse, declare any future catastrophes as the result of its disbandment, and villify the United States.

Let's follow a bit of your own advice here:

Ok, obviously you misunderstood my post. First lets review my post.

Yes - let's do:

"It doesn't matter if the rest of the world is wrong or not. As long as the rest of the world supports the UN, we are going to have to deal with it. Thats the, "reality." "

Why are we "going to have to deal with" what you yourself admit will be an irrelevant entity?

As you can see, the first part of my post concerns Kathianne's statemnts about the UN. You respond to this section in the main part of your post. The second half concerns David2004's post about an oil export tax. In this section I state that such a tax would an unprecedented expansion of UN power, and unconsitutional. Because it would be unconstitutional, the US would be forced to withdraw from the organization, and without US support, the UN would lose what lose what relevancy it has left, and likely disband eventually. What you do is try take two obviously unrelated (except insofar as both deal with the United Nations) topics and present them as somehow related. As I have said, without US support the UN probably could not exist long; however, the world won't be happy about it.

While you've managed to encase it in thicker, more torturously dense verbiage, your contradiction remains.

 

[Said1]

The UN is exceedingly corrupt. It is one of the most inefficent and powerless organizations created in history. You are correct when stating as such. I agree with you. However, regardless of the problems within the United Nations, most of the rest of the world (eg Europe, China, India, Japan, Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, South Korea, etc.) support the UN. Unless we want to engender a lot of pointless bad will we should, if not nessicarily subjecting ourselves to the power of the UN, at least tacitly support the UN and use the organization to achieve what ends we may.

The UN is powerless to act as a single unit ie: World Body, regardless of the member states who still support the UN. The only ends that have are achieved support the agendas of those nations in support of the organization. Corruption usually goes hand in hand with other terms such as "self-serving", there should be no need to point that out to you.

 

[Mr.Conley]

That's because the U.N. retains some semblance of relevancy - owing, of course, to the good graces of the American taxpayer.

So you concede that the UN is a (at least ostensisibly) supported my the clear majority of the world's governments and many of its people?

Well, thank God that A) I said nothing of the kind, and B) it has nothing to do with the topic at hand anyway!

You have manufactured this "implication" out of whole cloth - and now seek to use it as a means of misdirecting the conversation toward some notion of "world happiness":

I was just making sure you were not. Thank you for confirming it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Conley
While it would certainly make the UN almost irrelevant, probably leading to its eventual disbandment, I doubt the world will think less of the organization. If anything, I postulate that worldwide support for the United Nations would increase exponentially, that the world would idolize its corpse, declare any future catastrophes as the result of its disbandment, and villify the United States.


Let's follow a bit of your own advice here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Conley
Ok, obviously you misunderstood my post. First lets review my post.


Yes - let's do:

"It doesn't matter if the rest of the world is wrong or not. As long as the rest of the world supports the UN, we are going to have to deal with it. Thats the, "reality." "

Why are we "going to have to deal with" what you yourself admit will be an irrelevant entity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Conley
As you can see, the first part of my post concerns Kathianne's statemnts about the UN. You respond to this section in the main part of your post. The second half concerns David2004's post about an oil export tax. In this section I state that such a tax would an unprecedented expansion of UN power, and unconsitutional. Because it would be unconstitutional, the US would be forced to withdraw from the organization, and without US support, the UN would lose what lose what relevancy it has left, and likely disband eventually. What you do is try take two obviously unrelated (except insofar as both deal with the United Nations) topics and present them as somehow related. As I have said, without US support the UN probably could not exist long; however, the world won't be happy about it.


While you've managed to encase it in thicker, more torturously dense verbiage, your contradiction remains.

Observe

While it would certainly make the UN almost irrelevant, probably leading to its eventual disbandment, I doubt the world will think less of the organization. If anything, I postulate that worldwide support for the United Nations would increase exponentially, that the world would idolize its corpse, declare any future catastrophes as the result of its disbandment, and villify the United States.

Here I say that without US backing, the UN would eventually collapse. I personally assume this would be because of the lack of funds. However, I say that the world would not support such action.

"It doesn't matter if the rest of the world is wrong or not. As long as the rest of the world supports the UN, we are going to have to deal with it. Thats the, "reality." "

Again I state that the UN is supported my the rest of the globe. That any actions to withdraw from or disband the organization would incite unnessicary world anger.

Now here:

As I have said, without US support the UN probably could not exist long; however, the world won't be happy about it.

Again I restate that the UN needs US backing to maintain it current size; however, "the world would not be happy about," any US withdrawal from the organization.

Where is the contradiction. Throughout my statements I have continually said that the United Nations is generally supported globally. That although its existence relies primarily on US funding, the UN is still an institution with a positive image that is generally approved of internationally. Any US effort would unleash a massive wave of anit-americanism. As such, we have to deal with the United Nations.

Now back to topic. Do you have anything to say concerning this oil export tax? or the city states