Moonlight Graham

Because it is seen as a legitimate action by the international community, and the great powers of the world specifically represented by the UNSC. Hence the concept of "collective security". The Concert of Europe established in 1814 after the Napoleonic Wars led to 100 years of relative international peace up until WWI compared to the 150 years previous to 1814 starting from the beginning of the modern international system established in 1648, where there was seemingly constant war between states from 1648-1814. Wars between great power states have also been relatively uncommon since the end of WWII and the establishment of the UN compared to the years between 1648-1814 or the 1st half of the 20th Century. The UN has a decent record at avoiding support for stupid interstate wars ie: Vietnam and 2003 Iraq, Iraq attacks against Iran and Kuwait etc.. If you can find a better system than collective security/concert of power to avoid international war i'm all ears.

Err what if you didn't vote for the man? Ever?

These may not even be related to this thread, but i just read that "French President President Nicolas Sarkozy's approval ratings have reached a new low of 26 per cent" in a new poll. Holy cow even more unpopular than Bush Jr.! http://www.metronews.ca/edmonton/world/article/568023--poll-sarkozy-s-approval-hits-new-low

I've heard the argument before. IMO, getting by on a technicality doesn't cut it. Maybe it even was "legal" to invade, that's still doesn't make it legitimate, nor does it represent the will of the UN. It was over a decade since the 1st Gulf War resolutions were passed, any kind of reasonable sense says after that much time the 2003 invasion needed another resolution. There was a reason that the US wanted to get a clear resolution passed in 2003. To clearly legitimize and legalize the invasion. If your friend stabs someone in the leg with a knife and you completely disagree with his actions, you're still going to give him the gauze you have and help him clean up the wound instead of letting the person bleed to death.

Well, nuclear deterrents and the bipolarity of the Cold War was most prominent reason in there being no WWIII. However, its impossible to know how the world order would be without the UN.

Did you really have to re-quote that whole thing lol?

Just let it off your chest people. Dalton McGuinty is an arse. Nice fat cash grab he's going for here. What happened to his campaign commercial "I won't lower taxes, but i won't raise them either.". You suck Dalton,

That's such a slippery-slope argument. First, gov't is funding sharia law just because they subsidize schooling? And this will lead to Sharia law elements in Canada? Gimme a break. I'm pretty sure you can go to any major university in Canada and take a history or religious studies course on "Islam" or a political science course on "Politics of the Middle-East" or several other similar courses focusing on Islam/middle-east, which will almost certainly will have some focus on Sharia Law. I have 100% no problem with such things being taught. Nobody will censor the information i want to learn, and everyone should have this freedom. Now, if people learn this and want then want to implement Sharia law, then that's when i will bitch-slap them in the mouth.

Well, you certainly have some strong opinions lol. The UN Charter is idealistic, yes. It would be foolish to think sovereign states would all follow the charter to a "t". The UN isn't perfect, far from it. It needs reform. But its existence is very important IMO because, in an increasingly globalizing world, it attempts to provide stability and cooperation between virtually all nations. If there is no cooperation, there is conflict. If there is no stability, there is instability. The UN was created out of the ashes of WWII so that such a bloody conflict (along with WWI) would not be repeated. In that sense, the UN has been successful. Most importantly, you either don't acknowledge or dont understand the more subtle, indirect ways that the UN avoids conflict and spurs cooperation between states. This was tried before. It led to WWI. The complex web of bilateral/multilateral alliances up to 1914 did little but virtually force europe into a brutal war. Then collective security was attempted via the League of Nations, which was flawed from the start and its failure was one of the reasons that WWII occurred. Let them them say that they wish. Have their words actually affected your life or your country in any significant way?

The UN did not clearly authorize military force against Iraq. Show me the resolutions. Efforts to vote on such a resolution failed in winter 2003. Resolution 1441 threatened "serious consequences".

UNESCO/programmes and funds, and many specialized agencies linked with the UN do a lot of (somewhat) well-meaning work for developing nations yes. Yes, developed nations pay most of the tab, who else would? However, states don't usually act unless it's in their best interests. Many of the policies of the World Bank/IMF, designed to "help" third world countries, have mostly ignored the actual grassroots demands of underdeveloped countries and in many cases only provide aid/loans etc. to third world countries if they agree to the conditions stipulated by these 1st world-run agencies/programs...which often benefit the 1st world. The 1st world have implemented neo-liberal policies in these 3rd world countries (see: the "Washington Consensus") largely in order to expand export markets and make cheap imports/manufacturing in favour of the developed countries. The WTO also makes trade laws that greatly disadvantage developing countries and exploit them in favour of the developed world. The developing countries have little choice but to accept the terms. The UN still does a lot of good work in the third world, but also shafts them at the same time. I disagree. Maybe if the UN had existed in 1914, WWI may never have happened. It was a stupid war. Collective security/concert of power has proven to be the best system to avoid war since the sovereignty of states was established in 1648. There are a lot of things the UN fails to do, but much of it has to do with the nature of the international system and the sovereignty of states. Nothing can change that, this is the way the world works. The Iraq War is an example. The US/Britain etc. did not get UN approval for the invasion, yet still invaded. That is their right as sovereign states. However, one can also argue that the UN did work in that instance because it did not approve the war and the entire rationale for the war turned out to be a sham. I'm sure next time a country has to decide whether to invade another, they will weight the approval of the UN even more greatly. Why do you feel the UN is such a failure? What does it fail to do? How would you change it and/or what's the alternative?

Third world lunacy? What about 1st world lunacy? But, of course there would be a problem with wacko govs like North Korea or Hussein-era Iraq having a veto. The problem with third world countries (minus China i suppose) not getting much of a say on the UNSC is that decisions continually benefit the interests of the developed world, while undeveloped countries get the shaft and continue to be exploited by the developed world as they have been for centuries. Makes it even harder for them to make any progress if they want to. In terms of sensitive security issues, I agree. However, the UN still does much work in settling disputes, such as in the International Court of Justice, along with peacekeeping, peacemaking, and post-conflict peacebuilding. And of course, the UNSC sets resolutions which puts force or pressure on states to avoid/solve conflict. It may not work sometimes, but its often better than not trying. Beyond collective security, I think the best thing about the UN is that it brings countries together to foster a ton of cooperation between countries to solve countless global problems ie: the UNEP, UNICEF, WFP, and other related specialized agencies/orgs like the ILO, WTO, WHO, IAEA, World Bank, IMF, and all sorts of commissions and conferences. It furthers countries to cooperate and work together more and build better relationships, which can further foster a greater amount of bilateral/multilateral cooperation & talks outside of the UN. As well, the General Assembly may not have a ton of teeth, but at least it gives countries a platform to voice their opinions and cast a vote on issues. As i said before, it brings countries to the table who may be unfriendly and normally not communicate much with each other.

Of course the UN has double-standards. The Security Council being the most blatant i suppose. This isn't news at all! It has been this way from the beginning. The fact that major security decisions are decided by only 15 states on the UNSC and not the 192 nations in the General Assembly, and the fact that only 5 states in the UNSC have exclusive veto rights on any binding int'l law, is of course a double-standard toward some nations. Africa and South America, for example, have no countries that are members of the permanent 5 UNSC gang. The international system is based on the sovereignty of states that exist in a system of anarchy ie: no overarching global authority to enforce int'l law. Therefore states mostly do what is in their own national interest. There was little to no intervention in Rwanda, DRC, or Darfur because intervening in said internal conflicts provided little benefit to most industrialized countries beyond the moral rationale. Beyond that, the rule of the sovereign equality of all states that has dominated the international system since 1648 means that there is great resignation among states in intervening in the internal affairs (ie: civil wars etc.) of other states. for example, U.N. peace-keeping troops cannot enter a country unless it has expressed permission from the participating country/countries. In many ways, it is a shame that states are so self-regarding. despite its flaws, the U.N. is a wonderful organization in that it fosters a great amount of cooperation and at least brings conflicting countries to the bargaining table instead of isolating themselves.

Canadians don't start civil wars. They have referendums.

I don't want to hear speculation, like "it was Harper's fault!", without some concrete info to back up the claim. I am wondering who exactly was responsible for organizing this summit and choosing to hold it in downtown core of the largest city in the freaking country. IMO, the protests and violence were unsuprising given the location, and obviously the security costs would be massive to secure such a densely populated urban area. Did Harper sit down and decide it? Or did some other person (in Cabinet?) or group choose the G20 location, with Harper acting as merely a rubber stamp?

Yup, the 'ol "mob mentality". The ones that clap from the distance are the true cowards, since they want to cause some havoc but haven't the balls to do it themselves.

Well, i've heard a heck of a lot more talk in the media lately using words like "anarchists", "anti-globalization", and "anti-capitalists" than words like "poverty" and "the environment". Seems to me the former groups got their messages out better. People still talk about the 1999 Seattle protests by "anti-globalization" folks for what i think was a WTO meeting. So unfortunately, i still believe violence and destruction are easier to get one's message across in the media. Whether media watchers actually are influenced by such destructive messages, i don't know. But can't deny they become more aware of the message. For terrorist groups, it seems violence is effective in converting people to their cause. But this is all why Gandhi was so awesome.

I disagree. Sometimes it can work, and this time i believe its working. What has been plastered all over the news this weekend? I've been explained on the news a few times already what exactly "anarchy" is. Do you think even a fraction of that coverage of the protests would exist if the protests were peaceful and without incident? Violence gets headlines, unfortunately. How many people knew what "Al-Qaeda" was on Sept. 10, 2001? However, i do think civil disobedience and non-violent protests can also be very effective.

I'm not a big fan of any of the zombie flicks, George A Romero or otherwise.

No. Another reason is that i'm sure they would feel that a) its not worth their time arguing something considered settled. and it would give more public/media attention to the deniers, something they don't want.

Ya i read that's what he was doing before this. Apparently not much order-taking in that job, and without the politics as you said

I guess i'll have to watch that part again. I thought they just put the hammer his hand and he dropped it. I dont know if it makes it scarier if he's alive or dead. hmmm. Yup, definitely not as good as the original. I don't understand why they need to remake some of these classic flicks. What are some of your other favorite horror flicks? I love the original Halloween, the definitive slasher. I have a soft spot for the old 80's Friday the 13th movies, thought most of them aren't really that great. Blair Witch Project was excellent, saw it the night it opened knowing nothing about it but went along with some movie-buff friends of mine who heard about it. The 1st 2 Evil Dead movies are also classic. other fav's: Psycho Rosemary's Baby The Others The Lost Boys the old "Christopher Lee" Dracula flicks. and for some reason "One-Hour Photo" really scares me even though its not technically a horror movie. It's just very creepy and very realistic and plausible, which i think is what makes a movie truly scary. The only other movie i had to turn off mid-way for a break cuz it was just creeping me out.

Why didn't he just resign this year or last year then? Why become an ass, disrespect the Prez and the admin, and make yourself look like a bad in the process? I think if he didn't like the policy he should have just resigned. Did he think he was going to change policy?

At the very beginning of the video she says that "Israel needs to remove all of its illegal settlements. They are basically all illegal". The rest of the video is more moderate views, with her sticking up the the BDS movement and calls for more public dialogue on the Israel-Palestine issue. I'm no expert on the Israel-Palestine issue, but the BDS movements seems fair and legit to me. It espouses non-violent means of protest, such as boycotting buying items that were made in Israel in areas within the Green Line. Here's what the BDS movement is, from their website. It has some international legal merit it seems: and this is interesting:

Maybe timed for the g8/g20 summits. i not really that surprised by this news however.