New to Update and Expand the U.N.

[jbg]

The U.N. and its concept of 19th Century nation-states is as outmoded as 78 rpm records.

We should include in the U.N. insurgents as well as governments, to invest them in the peace process. My short list would include (and I may be off on some spellings):

1. Boko Haram (in Nigeria);
2. Shabab (in Somalia);
3. Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS);
4. Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula;
5. Hamas (for Gaza and other parts of Occupied Palestine);
6. Bundy Ranch (for U.S.);
7. Hezbollah (for parts of Occupied Palestine);
8. Muslim Brotherhood;
9. Six Nations;
10. Talban of Pakistan; and
11. Taliban of Afghanistan

These groups, if given a place at the table and liberal U.N. funding,could really supply some novel and creative ideas that could give some new dynamic, even explosive energy to the peace process. Certainly far more productive than sticking a bunch of has been "old farts" in the same negotiating sequences that have accomplished nothing of value for years if not decades.

I would like both thoughts, and suggestions as to other groups that could enliven world negotiations.

[Guest]

I think that's a great idea. Get them all in one place, lock the doors... And release the hounds!

[jbg]

I think that's a great idea. Get them all in one place, lock the doors... And release the hounds!

Exactly, since dogs are unclean to them. Send in a pack of attack-trained golden retrievers.

[Topaz]

That would never happen because there is MONEY to be made in war, its like tobacco, until they find something else to replace it, both, will stay. Besides that I don't think MAN could ever be peaceful.

[Guest]

Besides that I don't think MAN could ever be peaceful.

I agree. War is as natural as breathing to the Human race.

[Michael Hardner]

I agree. War is as natural as breathing to the Human race.

I don't exactly agree. Violence, and ultimately murder is what comes naturally. War is something more advanced, and built upon a more evolved model of human organization.

Should we give up on banning murder because it comes naturally to us ?

[Guest]

Sure, declared war is not exactly what I meant, but neither is individual murder. As groups (mobs, tribes) our natural inclination is to mistrust and fight, as soon as we can come up with a reason.

Edited June 14, 2014 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

Sure, declared war is not exactly what I meant, but neither is individual murder. As groups (mobs, tribes) our natural inclination is to mistrust and fight, as soon as we can come up with a reason.

Our best invention so far is language, and that has been instrumental in creating rules and eventually laws to govern behavior in groups. I see the U.N. as a continuation of that.

[Guest]

I don't know about that. Language might be the biggest culprit when it comes to strife. Look at this place...

[Michael Hardner]

I don't know about that. Language might be the biggest culprit when it comes to strife. Look at this place...

It provides for negotiations, empathy, and so on...

[Guest]

Arguments, misconceptions, unintended consequences...

Two species which existed in the distant past, a very great distance from the Milky Way galaxy. The G'Gugvuntt were enemies of the Vl'hurgs, and these strange and warlike beings are on the brink of an interstellar war, because of an insult uttered by the G'Gugvuntt leader to the mother of the Vl'hurg leader. Resplendent in their black-jeweled battle shorts, they were meeting for the last time, and a dreadful silence filled the air as the Vl'hurg leader was challenging the G'Gugvuntt leader to retract the insult. At the precise moment, the phrase "I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle" (muttered by Arthur Dent to himself, which for some strange reason was carried by a freak wormhole in space back in time to the farthest regions of the universe where the G'Gugvuntts and the Vl'hurgs lived) filled the air over the conference table, which in the Vl'hurg tongue was the most dreadful insult imaginable. It left them no choice but to declare war on the G'Gugvuntts, which went on for a few thousand years and decimated their entire galaxy.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't agree with you on this one.

Here:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=mjMt2G97vcAC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=humans+"Language+allowed+humans+to"&source=bl&ots=ZQMsq7LaeG&sig=SZJoirFPl72YaisH_G36fGEEADU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8HucU-K8BsG0yASPlYHYCg&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=humans%20"Language%20allowed%20humans%20to"&f=false

" In becoming the symbolic species, humans used language to create the extended communication systems that allowed us not only to survive but to understand but to understand what was happening to them and their comrades... Without language, humans are merely incompetent, ineffectual, and very naked apes."

Introduction to the History of Communication: Evolutions & Revolutions

By Terence P. Moran

http://books.google.ca/books?id=uBfnhWWKlqMC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=humans+"Language+allowed+humans+to"&source=bl&ots=iV17oDxbKg&sig=OrIR0CySPu-Jl2DWjp6wtjHvmbs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8HucU-K8BsG0yASPlYHYCg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=humans%20"Language%20allowed%20humans%20to"&f=false

"Language allowed humans to co-operate..."

Globalization and Media: Global Village of Babel

By Jack Lule

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jep/3336451.0009.201?view=text;rgn=main

Hilary Wilder and Sharmila Pixy Ferris

william paterson university

"The development and use of symbolic language allowed humans to actualize and share knowledge outside of the specific here-and-now situation they were in,"

-------

There are a lot of examples of this perspective from academia, and in fact I don't think I've ever read anything to the contrary. So if you disagree, then that's fine but you're really disagreeing with the accepted belief more than me.

[Guest]

I didn't so much disagree, as express some mild scepticism. I'm sure language does all the things you say. It also allows us to lie, cheat and insult.

It allows us to enunciate differences that lead to conflict. How would the Sunnis and the Shiites have ever disagreed on Muhammad's heir if they couldn't talk to each other?

Edited June 14, 2014 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

I didn't so much disagree, as express some mild scepticism. I'm sure language does all the things you say. It also allows us to lie, cheat and insult.

It allows us to enunciate differences that lead to conflict. How would the Sunnis and the Shiites have ever disagreed on Muhammad's heir if they couldn't talk to each other?

Well, we know that that's possible with language. Also with governments and all kinds of institutions that work, for the most part, to aid collaboration and broker common approaches.

What is the point ?

I guess, like the UN, if something isn't perfect then it's garbage ?

[monty16]

The U.N. and its concept of 19th Century nation-states is as outmoded as 78 rpm records.

We should include in the U.N. insurgents as well as governments, to invest them in the peace process. My short list would include (and I may be off on some spellings):

• Boko Haram (in Nigeria);
• Shabab (in Somalia);
• Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS);
• Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula;
• Hamas (for Gaza and other parts of Occupied Palestine);
• Bundy Ranch (for U.S.);
• Hezbollah (for parts of Occupied Palestine);
• Muslim Brotherhood;
• Six Nations;
• Talban of Pakistan; and
• Taliban of Afghanistan

These groups, if given a place at the table and liberal U.N. funding,could really supply some novel and creative ideas that could give some new dynamic, even explosive energy to the peace process. Certainly far more productive than sticking a bunch of has been "old farts" in the same negotiating sequences that have accomplished nothing of value for years if not decades.

I would like both thoughts, and suggestions as to other groups that could enliven world negotiations.

You would be creating a worse situation for the US than the present. The UN's mission is to prevent wars and the Security Council has been successful in not giving the US licence to start wars in many instances. If Americans were aware of that fact then maybe they would be more supportive of the UN?

Think of situations where the UN decline the US permission to start a war and the US did anyway by pretending to get the go-ahead through Nato. The purpose of the UN was partially served in that the US was exposed. And being exposed many times has now convinced at least part of the world that the US is the pariah nation.

[Guest]

Well, we know that that's possible with language. Also with governments and all kinds of institutions that work, for the most part, to aid collaboration and broker common approaches.

What is the point ?

I guess, like the UN, if something isn't perfect then it's garbage ?

How did the UN come into this? I'm not a fan, but I never mentioned them. The OP did, but they weren't the focus of our discussion.

[monty16]

I didn't so much disagree, as express some mild scepticism. I'm sure language does all the things you say. It also allows us to lie, cheat and insult.

It allows us to enunciate differences that lead to conflict. How would the Sunnis and the Shiites have ever disagreed on Muhammad's heir if they couldn't talk to each other?

Had the US not started the wars with Iraq for it's oil resources, Iraq would have likely continued to prosper with minimal loss of life as Saddam held it together. Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, and all other sky fairy believers lives together in relative peace and women even worked beside men as their equals in Iraq.

Now, the US has succeeded in slaughtering millions of Iraqis to free up that country's oil for the world market. On the bright side, the US may still find those missing WMD's!

p.s. They're under Obama's desk in the WH.

[Michael Hardner]

How did the UN come into this? ... The OP did, but they weren't the focus of our discussion.

Well, my point on language was built on the topic in the OP, and the thread.

Language, laws, government and ... anything ... can be used for other purposes. I guess you could strangle somebody with a stethoscope too.

[Guest]

Had the US not started the wars with Iraq for it's oil resources, Iraq would have likely continued to prosper with minimal loss of life as Saddam held it together. Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, and all other sky fairy believers lives together in relative peace and women even worked beside men as their equals in Iraq.

Now, the US has succeeded in slaughtering millions of Iraqis to free up that country's oil for the world market. On the bright side, the US may still find those missing WMD's!

p.s. They're under Obama's desk in the WH.

Sure, because the schism came about in the late twentieth century.

If your opinion is that people should live under a dictatorship to prevent them from scrapping that's fine. But they will, eventually, fight over their differences.

[Guest]

Well, my point on language was built on the topic in the OP, and the thread.

Language, laws, government and ... anything ... can be used for other purposes. I guess you could strangle somebody with a stethoscope too.

Yep. They used language at the Wannsee conference.

My original point was that we are a naturally warlike species, and we will fight over pretty much anything unless we have a full belly and the TV on.

[monty16]

Yep. They used language at the Wannsee conference.

My original point was that we are a naturally warlike species, and we will fight over pretty much anything unless we have a full belly and the TV on.

It's no reason to just ignore the problem. Wars have been prevented through diplomacy and through the UN's efforts on behalf of the world and against the most powerful warring nation or nations. In the present case it's the US and their propaganda efforts that are always centered around humanitarian excuses must not be accepted.

But in today's world with nuclear weapons it's absolutely essential that we don't ignore the bully and write it off the way you seem to want to.

Eventually, it's inevitable that the US victims will exact revenge because today's weapons are powerful and significant enough to be able to do that in a meaningful way. The US will suffer but we too will most likely suffer because we have been complicit in joining with the bully and bringing harm to others on the US's behalf.

And so, you've initiated the discussion on the fact that we are a warlike people. I've just carried it a little further to it's obvious conclusion.

[Michael Hardner]

Yep. They used language at the Wannsee conference.

My original point was that we are a naturally warlike species, and we will fight over pretty much anything unless we have a full belly and the TV on.

Both of which are figuratively attainable for many if not most of us.

But, I agree that humans are naturally warlike, which is why the UN is needed. Point taken.

[Guest]

It's no reason to just ignore the problem. Wars have been prevented through diplomacy and through the UN's efforts on behalf of the world and against the most powerful warring nation or nations. In the present case it's the US and their propaganda efforts that are always centered around humanitarian excuses must not be accepted.

But in today's world with nuclear weapons it's absolutely essential that we don't ignore the bully and write it off the way you seem to want to.

Eventually, it's inevitable that the US victims will exact revenge because today's weapons are powerful and significant enough to be able to do that in a meaningful way. The US will suffer but we too will most likely suffer because we have been complicit in joining with the bully and bringing harm to others on the US's behalf.

And so, you've initiated the discussion on the fact that we are a warlike people. I've just carried it a little further to it's obvious conclusion.

I just heard on the news that the US is sending a carrier and a couple of missile deploying destroyers to the gulf. Bullies like ISIS might get what's coming to them very soon.

[monty16]

I just heard on the news that the US is sending a carrier and a couple of missile deploying destroyers to the gulf. Bullies like ISIS might get what's coming to them very soon.

It will give the US some time to think about what side they are going to bomb. And of course, it's going to help Obama in getting out of the hot seat for a few days anyway. Some of the hawks are screaming for war but they don't know what side to bomb.

The most sensible rhetoric coming out of the US is to not take Malaki's side because he's not willing to include all sects in his version of Iraq. They see it as just causing more problems.

So, what does the US do now? Let Malaki's government fall and then let the people decide which sect will come to power? Does that mean civil war and a division of Iraq into separate small states? Why would the US care?

Before you go running off at the mouth in advocating more slaughter of Iraq's people, maybe you better try considering whether or not you want to see Malaki supported and what that will mean.

Or just face the facts if indeed you think Iraq should survive. Saddam had it right all along!

[Guest]

Don't you think the Iraqi people are being slaughtered anyway? At least with US cruise missiles and drones, the ones who are slaughtered are generally the ones who should be slaughtered.

Notwithstanding the occasional mistake, of course.