Brave New World

[murraysovereign]

The earliest concrete plan for the formation of a new world organization was begun under the aegis of the U.S. State Department late in 1939. The name United Nations was coined by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1941 to describe the countries fighting against the Axis. It was first used officially on Jan. 1, 1942, when 26 states joined in the Declaration by the United Nations, pledging themselves to continue their joint war effort and not to make peace separately. The need for an international organization to replace the League of Nations was first stated officially on Oct. 30, 1943, in the Moscow Declaration, issued by China, Great Britain, the United States, and the USSR.

 

At the Dumbarton Oaks Conference (Aug.–Oct., 1944), those four countries drafted specific proposals for a charter for the new organization, and at the Yalta Conference (Feb., 1945) further agreement was reached. All the states that had ultimately adhered to the 1942 declaration and had declared war on Germany or Japan by Mar. 1, 1945, were called to the founding conference held in San Francisco (Apr. 25–June 26, 1945). Drafted at San Francisco, the UN charter was signed on June 26 and ratified by the required number of states on Oct. 24 (officially United Nations Day). The General Assembly first met in London on Jan. 10, 1946.

 

It was decided to locate the UN headquarters in the E United States. In Dec., 1946, the General Assembly accepted the $8.5 million gift of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., to buy a tract of land along the East River, New York City, for its headquarters. The principal buildings there, the Secretariat, the General Assembly, and the Conference Building, were completed in 1952. The Dag Hammarskjöld Memorial Library was dedicated in 1961.

 

Well done, MalCon. Murray is often fact-challenged.

 

Except that none of what he cites contradicts my assertion that the UN was formed after the Second World War, with the aim of preventing a Third World War. There are a few no-sequiters strung together there, but my point stands. Were people talking about some sort of successor to the League of Nations as early as 1939? Yes, they were. Were the words "United Nations" used to describe the western allied powers? Yes, they were. Were the intial organisers of the UN all allies in the war against Germany and Japan? Yes, they were. Was the United Nations established to fight the Germans or the Japanese? No, it was not. It was established with the objective of avoiding further major wars between nations. Or, since you seem quite keen on cut-and-paste, it was established "as a successor to the League of Nations, which was widely considered to have been ineffective in its role as an international governing body, in that it had been unable to prevent World War II" (see Wikipedia if you feel you must, although you should have learned this stuff in high school). Was it established to combat the USSR? No, it was not. The USSR was in fact a founding member.

 

Which part of that would you like to challenge, FW? I'd be interested in hearing the version of history they taught you. I'm always open to learning something new.

Edited September 11, 2007 by murraysovereign

[catbirdseat]

Everybody is worried about what will happen when "they take your rights away", as though it's all going to happen at once and you'll take up arms on "that day". There isn't going to be A DAY.

 

Your rights will be nibbled away at little by little so that you'll hardly notice what you are losing. We'll be like the fabled frog in the stew pot who doesn't notice he's being cooked.

 

A few people will keep crying out, "we're losing our rights!". But the vast majority won't notice.

[No. 13 Baby]

DFGxauL07_I

[pink]

Everybody is worried about what will happen when "they take your rights away", as though it's all going to happen at once and you'll take up arms on "that day". There isn't going to be A DAY.

 

Your rights will be nibbled away at little by little so that you'll hardly notice what you are losing. We'll be like the fabled frog in the stew pot who doesn't notice he's being cooked.

 

A few people will keep crying out, "we're losing our rights!". But the vast majority won't notice.

 

 

crock pot style

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Your rights will be nibbled away at little by little so that you'll hardly notice what you are losing. We'll be like the fabled frog in the stew pot who doesn't notice he's being cooked.

 

That's what the ACLU has done for 30 years and you guys love it.

[cj001f]

yes there were governers, but still under the rule of the king.

 

Australia, New Zealand and Canada all had their own elected legislators and legislatures. New Zealand was even the first to grant women the right to vote

[Mos_Chillin]

Ya know I've got a plan for a Brave New World.

 

Washington State should immediately split from our union with the USA.

 

We should form a new country centered around. WA, OR, North ID, and MT. I would be willing to negotiate with CA and Las Vegas for membership in our new country. Furthermore we should send delegates to BC and Western Alberta and ask them to split with Canada and join our new country. In this case Edmonton and Calgary would be border towns.

 

AK and the Yukon should form their own country, and to our east another candidate for a country would be the Dakotas and WI MN. To the south another good country would be Eastern MT, WY, CO, NV, NM, AZ, and maybe western Texas. I would hope that we would have good relationships with all those new countries.

 

The rest of the US can fuck right off, well Louisiana isn't too bad, but they should be part of another country.

 

I don't know what to do with Southern ID or UT. There's some cool parts, but way too many Mormons.

 

http://zapatopi.net/cascadia/

 

 

 

 

[sk]

hey i signed that petition when i was 18

[Mos_Chillin]

hey i signed that petition when i was 18

 

You have knocked my socks off yet again, Muffy. And a Taoist to boot.

 

Let me know if you want to run off to Arizona and make me a happy man.

[catbirdseat]

 

Your rights will be nibbled away at little by little so that you'll hardly notice what you are losing. We'll be like the fabled frog in the stew pot who doesn't notice he's being cooked.

 

That's what the ACLU has done for 30 years and you guys love it.

Right, KK, and white is black and black is white.

[sk]

hey i signed that petition when i was 18

 

You have knocked my socks off yet again, Muffy. And a Taoist to boot.

 

Let me know if you want to run off to Arizona and make me a happy man.

 

can i bring my boyfriend?

 

xoxoxoxoox

come back to Oregon and visit me. I miss you

 

HUGS

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Your rights will be nibbled away at little by little so that you'll hardly notice what you are losing. We'll be like the fabled frog in the stew pot who doesn't notice he's being cooked.

 

That's what the ACLU has done for 30 years and you guys love it.

Right, KK, and white is black and black is white.

 

The ACLU has engaged in an ongoing onslaught on the right to free association, private organizations, and religious expression for years. They've made our lives less safe and punished victims in the name of criminal's rights. And they've done this through extortion, harassment, and the weight of law. It's despicable and vile, and has affected our lives far more than anything Bush has done to inhibit our freedoms.

 

[cj001f]

Freedom is slavery

[tvashtarkatena]

 

The ACLU has engaged in an ongoing onslaught on the right to free association, private organizations, and religious expression for years. They've made our lives less safe and punished victims in the name of criminal's rights. And they've done this through extortion, harassment, and the weight of law. It's despicable and vile, and has affected our lives far more than anything Bush has done to inhibit our freedoms.

 

Thanks to everyone's favorite Phi Beta Kappa ("No, I'm really smart...I AM, you assclown!") for providing some minor entertainment here. Love the 'despicable and vile' line; were you sporting a 19th century English gentleman's waistcoat and topper when that issued forth from your indignant countenance, Master K? Extortion, OK, but using the weight of law? Even the current administration would find such a thing unthinkable! The ACLU's Seattle staff really gets a kick out of this kind of stuff.

Edited September 11, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[catbirdseat]

Free Association: if the government is paying for it you can't exclude

 

Private Organizations: you can't exclude people on the basis of sex, color, or religion unless it is a religious organization.

 

Religious Expression: the government can't pay to support it.

 

Sounds about right to me.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Free Association: if the government is paying for it you can't exclude

 

Private Organizations: you can't exclude people on the basis of sex, color, or religion unless it is a religious organization.

 

Religious Expression: the government can't pay to support it.

 

Sounds about right to me.

 

Nice rationalization with just the right spin to make it sound "right". The ACLU stifles freedom with the force of law and threat to ruin lives and bankrupt organizations. They don't free, they oppress through the force of law. And they've affected far more people and groups than George Bush.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Free Association: if the government is paying for it you can't exclude

 

Private Organizations: you can't exclude people on the basis of sex, color, or religion unless it is a religious organization.

 

Religious Expression: the government can't pay to support it.

 

Sounds about right to me.

 

 

Nice rationalization with just the right spin to make it sound "right". The ACLU stifles freedom with the force of law and threat to ruin lives and bankrupt organizations. They don't free, they oppress through the force of law. And they've affected far more people and groups than George Bush.

 

This is getting more precious by the minute....Whet our whistles with some historical examples...don't be a tease. Feel free to employ the full weight of your lexicon.

Edited September 11, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Hey Trashtalkingcunt. I don't read your replies. All I see is this:

 

*** You are SO ignoring this loser ***

 

I know you find it hard to find meaning on this site and on earth in general without my attention, but I'm sure you can if you try hard enough.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Hey Trashtalkingcunt. I don't read your replies. All I see is this:

 

*** You are SO ignoring this loser ***

 

 

Yes, I know, but everyone else does, and that's why I write them.

[Mos_Chillin]

Damn! I forgot "you are ignoring this culture" as an option in the poll.

 

You go, tax-evading non-conformists!

 

nobody has voted as a go-along [] , to our credit

[olyclimber]

http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1187188414685.shtm

i feel much safer now that the government is watching the homeland with satellite imagery with resolution to inches. best of all, no congressional oversight. wait till Hillary gets her hands on this! the terrorists don't stand a chance.

[pink]

yes there were governers, but still under the rule of the king.

 

Australia, New Zealand and Canada all had their own elected legislators and legislatures. New Zealand was even the first to grant women the right to vote

 

it was trashtalkingtina who said the u.s. is the closest the world has come to a world government. i don't disagree with you, go argue with talkingtina.