We believe that within this website lies the only solution to the creation of World Peace
So far, nobody has shown us to the contrary
You may not have time to read all this website in one go. Why not save it to file or add it to favourites?
Some people might protest that we shouldn't need to do anything as drastic as the radical changes that are being suggested in this website. After all, haven't we already got the United Nations to sort out any international problems? Aren't the United States of America and its allies there to sort out any trouble in the world?
With regard to the United Nations: this admirably motivated organisation is unfortunately notoriously effete when it comes to actually making a positive difference to any situations that develop in the world. It has but two options to apply in any incidents that occur:
-
To make a directive that the parties in question are at complete liberty to ignore if they choose.
-
To send in a peace-keeping force to help appease the situation in some way.
The first option is of course generally a somewhat pointless exercise, except that it can give another agency (the United States in particular) licence to engage in a course of action for its own advantage in the name of the U.N. if it so chooses. This doesn't necessarily make the world a safer place to live.
The second option is even worse. The idea that you can add another army to any situation and improve it is of course absurd; situations are improved by taking away armies not adding them. At best the peace-keeping army can only sit around and watch, at worst it can get involved in the fighting and add to the carnage and destruction.
As for the United States of America and its allies, these do of course constitute the most powerful military force in the world today. The problem is they remain under the control of a democratically elected government. It has already been pointed out that the world is populated by imperfect, un-evolved people still acting mainly on the level of chimpanzees, who both do the electing and get themselves elected. This means that this powerful military body has the potential of falling into the hands of people whose motives might be less than enlightened and for the best. Weren't Hitler and his Nazis democratically elected into power just seventy odd years ago? Can you imagine what the outcome would be if a similar organisation were to be elected to office today or tomorrow in America? It is the nature of democracy that this will always remain a possibility.
In any case you don't have to look to what could happen in the current status quo to see problems, you only have to look at what has already transpired. Why hasn't the USA enforced any U.N. resolutions against Israel, or defended Tibet against the Chinese? However, they were exceedingly quick to invade Iraq whether they had the support of the U.N. or otherwise. It is not an issue here as to whether or not they did this out of a self-interested motive; i.e. to gain access to Iraq's oil supplies, but it is an issue that they could act out of such self-interest if they so desired.
A true peace-keeping agency cannot act selectively as the United States and its allies have done, and it cannot act out of self-interest. A true agency acting on behalf of the UN has to be completely impartial and consistent.
