French, British and American military forces attack Libya

The reason why the US intervenes so much was due to WWII. If the League of Nations intervened against the dictators, there wouldn't have been a WWII.

LOL! Yep, because the League of Nations worked.

The problem with the League of Nations is the same problem with the United Nations now, albeit even worse then, no power.

The United Nations has no real power. Any country can refuse a mandate or sanction from the United Nations. The UN is an international organization, a peacekeeping armada at best, not a political powerhouse. The only thing that backs up the United Nations is the countries that are represented, which doesn't do much for big countries like the United States who completely ignored the United Nations when they told the United States to essentially "hold their horses" when it came to Iraq.

Global unity may be an interesting idea, but that is all it is right now, an idea that won't come to fruition without every country in the world taking a step back and deciding to rewrite the book on forms of government.

It just irks me how much money the United States wastes on an international organization that the United States itself takes advantage of whenever the United nations, as a whole, decides against the country.

Anyway, it isn't so much that the League of Nations didn't interfere, but that it couldn't interfere. What if they did? What would have stopped Germany, Italy and Japan from doing anything other than ignoring them or laughing in their faces?

International organizations like this will never have any power because for all of our talk about desiring global unity we don't want any organization that threatens the sovereignty of nations. It's a pathetic example of trying to have one's cake and eat it too. "I want this, but I'm not willing to give up something to make it possible." Government seems to have forgotten a lesson that we all should have learned growing up - "life is full of compromises."

We need to take the ego out of individual nations. They are meaningless and belong in the past. Honestly, what makes a Dutch person different from a Swedish person? All small differences aside, is there anything? I really don't see any, so what is up? The United Nations is just the precursor to a true global government. That time is coming, ladies and gentlemen!

I hope I'm long dead before that happens.

Or at the very least, like I said, the proverbial book on government better be thrown away and completely rewritten. I can't imagine any current form of government working effectively when put on such a grand scale. Even the democracy we worship so much will crumble and be a tragedy that will scar billions of people.

limited... hhhmmmm I think not...

I think that is Sprite's point -__-
Because the League of Nations didn't do anything (for whatever reasons) events spiraled out of control and into a major conflict.

Also, Tsurayu it is puzzling how you don't like the UN because it lacks power, yet would hate to see a powerful world government. It is for the very reason that people fear a one world government that the UN is quite limited in its ability to force rules and mandates on other countries.

Still, $3 billion for a forum that helps to prevent war, spreads education, builds partnerships and provides humanitarian relief? Not too bad of a price.

Sorry that was me not being clear about what I intended to say. It isn't as though I want the United Nations to have more power so it could operate better, but rather using that to prove my point as to how useless they are.

On the contrary, I want them to have less power; I want the United Nations to disband. I despise what it represents. World unity is far too idealistic, at least for now. The global political and religious ramifications are down right terrifying, to be honest.

I sincerely hope the United Nations continues to be the political and sociological joke that it is in hopes that people contemplate why it doesn't work. As a result, hopefully ponder why it might not work and realize that a one world government is a terrible, terrible idea.

Granted one could argue that a unified, world, government isn't what the United Nations ever embodied, nor that it represents the idea, but I argue that it does represent the ideal.

This isn't Star Trek where some United Federation of Planets exists where everyone in the world is under a unified, Representative Democracy. It will not work that way, and I highly doubt it ever will. There are too many cultural, economical and sociological differences out there for a world government to ever work. I argue it is pointless to try to have an attempt at a direct democracy either, which is what I believe the United Nations represents. It is a waste of time and effort.

As for your last statement, I don't even know where to start. Prevent war? Puh-lease. Negotiations almost always fail when the United Nations gets involved. I can't say that the United Nations has ever indirectly caused a war, but they have certainly done nothing to directly stop wars either. Well, short of wagging their proverbial finger at other countries and pretending like sanctions are the solution to all worldly problems. Spread education? Where do you even come up with that? Education is part of Millennium Development Goals and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples outlines education, but the United Nations has done nothing to improve the quality of education around the world. Partnership? Again, part of the Millennium Development Goals, but it is hard to argue one way or another as to what the United Nations has done regarding "partnerships" as it is such a vague term. Humanitarian relief I'll give you, but that could just as effectively be done on a by-faith basis between allied countries without the presence of the United Nations.

It's uselessness far outweighs it's usefulness.

You assume that the only prevented wars are the ones that are on the brink of occurring. Their is a cohesion created when an overarching body that represents something larger than either nation exist. At the very least it is a symbol or idea - maybe an idealistic one as you stated - but still one that nations can gather around.

Also, I was not referring to academic education. Instead, health, environmental, and civic education.

And you assume to the contrary. Point being, neither one of us have a good grasp of the internal workings of the United Nations and what they do and do not do in reference to peacekeeping efforts. The best we can do is assume based on what results we have (or have not) seen.

Then again, I'm only assuming that you are using "assume" in a negative connotation. Reminds me of what a teacher once told me. When you assume you make an "ass" out of "u" and "me". I thought that was clever at the time, but as time went on I wondered what was so wrong about assuming. Eh, that's an entirely different conversation altogether.



Yeah, I kind of figured that after I typed out what I said, but I stand by my view regardless of the context of education.

Surely the UN is, at the very least, a platform for trade and democracy. Enjoy maintaining vital foreign relations without it; this isn't the 19th century.

Does it justify the amount of money spent and time invested?

Then again, it is donation based. No country has to spend any money on the United Nations.

Anyway, trade? Maybe. But I wouldn't be so eager to throw around the term democracy. It's getting a little troubling how throwing the term "democracy" onto the world political table is a reason for so much trouble in the world right now. It's becoming the new "Christianity" in regards to affecting world politics (and by extension war). Hmm, Democratic Crusades... has a nice ring to it.

[font=Verdana][color=green]You say that democracy is causing a lot of trouble in the world at the moment. Okay, granted, wars have occurred due to this reason. However, you fail to acknowledge the fact that, opposite side of Democracy, dictatorships only have no trouble due to oppression. When a nation is oppressed, they can't fight back, hence there's "no trouble", according to your definition.

Also, as Dos said, the UN is an economic hub of the world. There's no maybe about it; without it, many trade relations will crumble. So yes, it is worth the money donated to it.

But, Christianity and Democracy have nothing to do with each other. In the crusades, Christianity was forced onto those Nations, but democracy is sought by the Nations. It just so happens that Dictators won't simply give up their power when asked nicely; they're just arseholes like that, unfortunately.

But, Christianity and Democracy have nothing to do with each other. In the crusades, Christianity was forced onto those Nations, but democracy is sought by the Nations. It just so happens that Dictators won't simply give up their power when asked nicely; they're just arseholes like that, unfortunately. [/quote]

Forced on what Nations????

Islam attacked Europe in the 700's AD and forced Islam on European nations four hundred years before the Crusades.

Europe and the USA should have never attacked Libya.

-Saved space for ripping into neko-chan for her lack luster and void argument.-

[font=Verdana][color=green]I know that Islamic nations attacked first. Where did I mention that they didn't? In fact, I fail to see what your point is. But, this is a discussion on Democracy, not religion, so let's not get sidetracked.

Okay, it's fine saying they shouldn't have attacked them, but why shouldn't have they? Please give us some insight on your view.

I know that Russia and China feel that this will only bring more terror to the civilians. Germany's standpoint was hilarious though; they don't support military action, but realise something must be done. Do they offer suggestions? No. Has the UN tried talking to Gaddafi before? Yes. Seeing as Libya supplies Europe a lot of oil, economic sanctions cannot be enforced, so what else is there?

Appreciate it, but I doubt it'll be long before you change your mind o3o

The reason that European nations are concerned, as other have said, is because they get there oil from Libya. The reason the the U.S is concerned is because America has to support democracy other wise what is America??

As an American i don't really care what the Europeans decide to do. whether they decide to protect their interests is their business. As an American though i support military intervention in the form of a no-fly zone. is do not support having American troops on the ground to fight. I feel we are only there to give the pro-democracy rebels a fighting chance. I am confidant that Obama will not do another Iraq especially from how he and Clinton handled the revolution in Egypt.

To answer your question first I must ask you a question. "What is a nation?" A Nation can summed up in 3 words; boarders, language, culture. those three aspects are what create a nation. These three aspects give people an identity. removing these three aspects eliminates facets of individuality from a people. If you wish to discuss this concept more. Create a thread.

On topic:

I'm with Tsurayu on this. This is a Lybian problem and it should be the Lybians who solve it. If an external power must intervene then it should be another Arab state. The middle east is undergoing a paradigm shift towards Democracy. It may not be a full fledged Democracy (indirect or direct) now but, they are moving in the right direction.

I'm in lines with the L/libertarian philosophy of non-intervention and isolationism. The U.S. military should only be used for our own defense. For example, enemy ships are nearing out shores, the U.S. Navy will sink them. If the enemy gets through our navy then the militia's would take up arms and repel the invading force.

Note: I said militia not Army or National guard. Why? Because I don't believe we should have a standing army as we do. I wish to model the U.S. military after the Swiss.

In addition, I think the U.N. is a waste of time and a bloody hypocrisy of the highest caliber. Countries with military Junta's and Dictatorships on the human rights council? Not to mention the whole system locks up because Russia or China says "No". Don't get me started on the laundry list of other bullshit this organization is guilty of. If I had my way, I would evict the U.N. from the United States. Stop all funding, tear down the building and establish a new organization. The requirements for joining would be the acceptance and enforcement of a Bill of Rights modeled after the one in the U.S. affording the citizens of all member states the same rights we enjoy here in the states. Though, I had specific rewordings I would use to afford people more protections and fewer restrictions.

Anyways, I'll cheer the Lybians on in their struggle for a more Democratic state but, I do not support the idea of using military force on another sovereign nation. Especially, a nation that has not declared war or similar military action.

Damn you FPOD. How do you always manage to say what I want to say while staying tactful and not sound like an angry political activist? >.>

That is pretty much exactly what I wanted to get across except I'm not as supportive of the spread of democracy, but that's for another debate.