It is my opinion that before our generation dies the UN will no longer exsists. Right before our eyes alliances are forming which will be the camps countries to keep other countries in check after the collapse. Is this a bad thing? No. What do you guys think?

As for NATO, it is completley differen than the UN and will last for another decade, tops. NATO is an alliance and when an ally asks for help, you help them. Certain NATO countries are denying us help in the war with Iraq and are ruinning everything that makes NATO valuable.

I don't believe the U.N will even weaken. I believe since our generation has been use to such diversity we can make it stronger. Our parents generation was use to seregation. WE ARE NOT! We as a group together can form a even greater alliance without the set backs of fake and nonesense restictions of race and religion and backgrounds. We need to fight for the world together and the U.N is a way to do that. You have to believe in the teens around you and learn to agree and get along because we need to fix the mess our past generations have put us in. We can all fight together and make a brighter tomorrow. We just have to believe in one another. And more then that we have to except the fact we are all human beings and these small differances should be of no matter. (race, religion, background) It is left up to us...our generation. Shall we keep up the same miskates that our parents generations have repeated? Or start from a new day?

"You state that you are a "Democratic Militarist" or "Justice Conservativism." I much prefer ignorant fool as an appropriate title for you. Let us see, you do not want to be refered to as either left or right, but you are a Facist limited by the consitution. Can we saw right winged? You are obviously so far right winged that you do not even realize it. Your blind ignorance that the world should be Americanized is simply ridiculous."

Well Italian, there is no need to insult me. I am not right-winged because I view the government as being beneficial to economies through intervention; generally that is a left winged view. My social ideas though are definitely right wing, but not extreme (think my opinions on tolerance of religion, homosexuality, etc. speak for themselves.). Also, when did I state that the world should be Americanized? Quite the contrary, the world's nationalism and differences should be embraced.

Anyway, let’s examine what you said further:

"You seem to think that all other countries or organizations are inferior to America."

No, but I think America should have expanded influence and power. Inferiority is in the eye of the beholder, a country like the USA is comparatively weaker to a country like the UK in many ways. Please, do not confuse my nationalism with arrogance.

"Why not instead of resorting to imperialism, we accept the diversity presented in the world to form a global community?"

Because frankly a global community destroys diversity. Traditions, currencies, individuality and nations all effectively cease to exist. It seems very soul-less and communistic to me, so I regularly oppose it.

"Furthermore, you state that most of your information comes from multiple sources and experience. Yet you have provided none."

What sources have you provided? I get my information from CNN, MSNBC, FOX NEWS (Right wing), NBC, National Review (neo-conservative), the economist, and other forms of media. I do not state them constantly because really it’s a waste of time when casually conversing.

"It was a good attempt at trying to sound intellegent, yet you have ultimatly failed."

Attempt? Intelligence is judged by varying factors, not just one. Anyway, why do you jump to conclusions so soon in regards to people's intelligence?

"What is wrong with EU? Let’s see, them have a stable currency, the have, for the most part, united Europe, with the exception of those who refuse to join."

Arguably, the USSR united Europe, but it decayed slowly over time. Right now much of Europe is leftist, has a weak economy, has lost much of its traditions in art, music, religion and philosophy, and much of the population is aging. In the long term, it will be nearly impossible for Europe to maintain its socialist programs as well as the EU's policies when the people normally cared for by the state double or triple in size and those paying taxes dwindle. Economically and socially speaking, Europe is not in a good position right now.

“Please, I urge you to supply some intelligent information, rather than your ignorant banter. Grace me with these sources that you obviously have learned so much from.”

I could, but really that doesn’t seem relevant. I tend to look at the mainstream media frequently, as well as other alternative sources such as Nation Review (the definitive neo-conservative publication), The economist, The BBC, and other lesser known information outlets. I don’t tend to list my sources outside of essays or projects though.

“You also say that competition is how the world works. How is this? Granted, this is how the American capitalist system works, but the world, I'm afraid not. If you haven't learned anything from WWI and WWII, that you can accept that competition is how the world works. However, if you have learned something, than you would realize that cooperation is how the world works.”

I have learned from WWI and WWII, its just that I feel that since war is inevitable co-operation outside of what is beneficial to people is a waste of time. Competition in the short term is dangerous and devastating; in the long term it can lead to many beautiful changes in the world after the initial rivalry of nations ends. The technology left after the Cold War and subsequent space race (other than military weapons) is a prime example of this.

“Furthermore, you imply that I am a supporter of Socialism. And I explained in my response to you that such as system has never worked, but Marx's ideals are intriguing. Have you read the Communist Manifesto? I will assume not, seeing how you cannot present any of Marx's views in your argument. If you have indeed read the manifesto, then I ask you to supply me with the main focus of Marx and Engles through this reading.”

Yes, quite true. But Marx’s primary vision was a kind of globalism by the unification of the workers of the world and the elimination of nation states. It has been some time since I read Marx and Engels; however I can say to you that I am familiar with much of the tenets of communism. I will apologize for my mistaken statement that you were a Marxist, which was in fact an ignorant assumption.

“You also state that multiple states will continue to exist rather than united ones. Yet, despite your claim, the EU is thriving and NAFTA works as well. Internationlism can work and is necessary in a society dominated by interdepence. So I challenge you to rebute these claims with actual evidence instead of ignorant opinionated claims.”

The EU is not thriving. Much of Europe lingers in recession, cultural stagnation, and loss of power to the USA. NAFTA is a highly controversial organization as well; obviously it will continue to be so long as free trade is an issue within the US. If you examine the power structure of the EU, you will find that it is attempting a kind of centralized control that coupled with Europe’s leftist policies scarily resembles the structure of the Soviets and Warsaw pact in some ways.

You state that you are a "Democratic Militarist" or "Justice Conservativism." I much prefer ignorant fool as an appropriate title for you. Let us see, you do not want to be refered to as either left or right, but you are a Facist limited by the consitution. Can we saw right winged? You are obviously so far right winged that you do not even realize it. Your blind ignorance that the world should be Americanized is simply ridiculous. You seem to think that all other countries or organizations are inferior to America. Why not instead of resorting to imperalism, we accept the diversity presented in the world to form a global community?

Furthermore, you state that most of your information comes from multiple sources and experience. Yet you have provided none. It was a good attempt at trying to sound intellegent, yet you have ultimatly failed. What is wrong with EU? Lets see, them have a stable currency, the have, for the most part, united Europe, with the exception of those who refuse to join. Please, I urge you to supply some intellegent information, rather than your ignorant banter. Grace me with these sources that you obviously have learned so much from.

You also say that competition is how the world works. How is this? Granted, this is how the American capitalist system works, but the world, I'm afraid not. If you haven't learned anything from WWI and WWII, that you can accept that competition is how the world works. However, if you have learned something, than you would realize that cooperation is how the world works.

Furthermore, you imply that I am a supporter of Socialism. And I explained in my response to you that such as system has never worked, but Marx's ideals are intriguing. Have you read the Communist Manifesto? I will assume not, seeing how you cannot present any of Marx's views in your argument. If you have indeed read the manifesto, then I ask you to supply me with the main focus of Marx and Engles through this reading.

You also state that multiple states will continue to exist rather than united ones. Yet, despite your claim, the EU is thriving and NAFTA works as well. Internationlism can work and is necessary in a society dominated by interdepence. So I challenge you to rebute these claims with actual evidence instead of ignorant opinionated claims.

Quite the opposite Italian, most of my information comes from multiple sources and experience. Actually, I view the international state as too easily corruptible to work, and really when you look at the EU it is a disaster. Socialism never works, it will inevitably fail at some point. Anyway, why would I want to make the same wage as everyone else under socialism? It simply makes no sense that anyone would support that sort of system outside of the far left, hence dictatorship will likely occur if that is implemented. We are both equally informed, I just happen to have a modern viewpoint on this while you possess a postmodern left-wing one.

Competition is ultimately how the human race works, without it cultures and the economy fail. People need rivalry to improve and set goals, you simply will not find that under a global state, unless capitalism is allowed (which you have indicated you would not want). Furthermore, hegemony under a global state crushes the ability of local government to deal with their own affairs, and often sets unrealistic expectations. For example, the Kyoto treaty and other environmental agreements would largely only be possible to implement in developed nations, such measures would prevent industrialization in developing nations because they are meant for a postindustrial world.

Like Marxists, you have some notable ideas and belief in the collective's ability to create a world free of boundaries. But such a world is inherently unpopular, and when done faces internal corruption, an imploding economy, and endless regulation. Rather, the better world is one where people are free to pursue their own inequality, with perhaps the guiding hand of the state.

Perhaps in the future when Mankind colonizes space, the international government will be possible outside of earth. Until then however, the international state is unattainable outside of something similar to the USSR or EU, both of which were corrupted. Alternatively, one could try to achieve unity through conquest, but that would be violent and largely unsuccessful. So at any rate, multiple states rather than united ones will remain simply because the alternative will not work.

On another note, you referred to me as right wing. I would say I possess viewpoints that cannot be defined as left or right, I advocate an agenda of state capitalism, elected military rule, and revival of vanishing national pride and traditions. This bares many Fascist elements but it is limited by the constitution, because of the inevitable corruption and tyranny of dictatorship and also the destruction of our nation's republic (also a tradition to the American people). Rather I would describe it as a Democratic Militarism, or preferably Justice Conservatism (also my screen name).

justice, when will you learn that the nation-state is failing? Are we engulfed in a War on Terrorism with any particular nation-state? No. It is because of this simple transition from wafare between states to warfare without states that we must accept the fact that the nation-state is failing. Justice, I am as conservative as they come. I am as nationalist as they come as well. However, I must accept that globalization is occurring and the next logical step in teleological development is a cosmopolis, global community.

You are right in the fact that no such global community exists as of yet. But in the fact of the 9/11 attacks, how can you believe that boundaries have anything to do with anything anymore? Furthermore, you seem to suggest that Europe is a declining state. Let us examine the European Union. Declining? I think not. The Euro matches the dollar in value, fairly impressive. What if this concept of unification regardless of borders were to happen internationally? Well, looks like it can work.

Unfortunatly, you have made me withdraw my previous statement that you are an informed individual. It seems that all of your information comes from either CNN or irrelevant internet sites. If you want some valuable information, consider reading a book. Since you must have a unique and compelling argument, few people are published and are therefore more legitimate in their views. "The Rise and Decline of the State" by Martin Van Creveld would be an excellent start. While the book is lenghty, the last two chapters should provide some light on the situation. Furthermore, "The World at 2000" by Fred Halliday is a less read, but equally powerful book. If you still believe that the nation-state is the most ideal and is the logical end of history, you should read "The End of History and the Last Man" by Francis ***uyama who will agree with you. But if you do so, you must follow it up with a reading of John Gray's "False Dawn" to show an effective countermeasure to this.

Bottom line, we must try and think outside of our American hegemony for a minute and try to invision a world where national domination no longer occurs. True international cooperation does not exist simply because the major powers do not want it to exist. But what if the U.S. kickstarted the program? Considering we have the most influence in the international sphere, it is possible. Whether or not you want to believe it, international cooperation is necessary. One of the main reasons that the UN was founded was to provide collective security. But when terrorists saw that this was not happening, they took full advantage of it. I only ask that you educate yourself before giving opinionated statements that carry to leverage or are not reason-based. Try and show me why the nation-state is needed, for you have failed and therefore have not responded to my argument.

"To me, nothing is better than National pride, power, a strong military and a capitalist economy"

There are few people who will argue with this view, at least of those on the right-wing end. But step back and look at just how ignorant that statement is. What if it were reversed? Take the Marxist approach that you are being suppressed by the upper class and will not have the same opportunities, ever. Now, I am not suggesting Communism, for a true Communist system, as Marx described it, is yet to evolve. However, we must have some understanding that interdependence does exist in the world. We are all part of the human race and something must be done to protect us as a people. Not as Europeans, not as Americans and not as terrorists, but as people. What we need is an international democratic society. And if you believe that this is a bad thing, then you will fall, just like the nation-state.

Italian, we are only in the UN because of a couple of well-meaning liberals and other such people who have a very naive concept that there is a mythical international community rather than squabbling countries and the USA manipulating each other. Yes, I know that this country is self serving. Which country does not try to enforce its agenda? The fact is, UN membership does nothing for us, and like the League of Nations the UN is both irrelevant and appeasing. The UN does not stop war, it does not stop dictators, and it does not stop evil. In the end, we are the world's police, a job originally intended for the now corrupted United Nations.

As for your comment on Nation-States: Not while I'm around. That philosophy and view of the world is very postmodern and globalist, something which generally I revile. To me, nothing is better than National pride, power, a strong military and a capitalist economy, all of which will likely be obliterated by a post-national world. I am a diehard militarist and nationalist foremost, and that strikes me as a very sickening and left wing bureaucratic secular society. It is quite impossible to run the world by committee, both the league of Nations and the United Nations both proved that. And often when that does occur, the countries involved become largely irrelevant and decaying leftist states (France and Europe consequently suffers from this).

This post is in response to your previous posts as you seem to be one of the few informed people on this site. Regardless, I have some critiques of your arguments.

First of all, I don't see the United Nations being anything like the League of Nations for one simple reason: The United States was never a member of the League of Nations and is the dominant member in the United Nations. In addition, when you say that other countries use the UN to their advantage, such as France, Russia and China, you seem to intentionally exempt the United States from this list. The U.S. uses the United Nations more than any other state on this earth. We are in violation of numerous resolutions passed by the UN. Furthermore, regardless of how many infractions we are guilty of, the UN is powerless to stop us. They will not persecute us and they never will. Why? Number one, the U.S. is the primary funder of the UN, contributing 25% of the UN budget.

Furthermore, the U.S. should not force the UN out of it. Rather, the U.S. should work multilaterally with other nations to construct a new and effective United Nations. One that cannot be swayed by powerful nations. The question is not whether or not this should be done, for the obvious answer is yes. Rather, the question is how do we go about this.

To begin, we must realize that the nation-state as we know it is failing. We have to acknowledge that warfare between states no longer exists and has been replaced by terrorist warfare conducted by rouge factions. Because of these facts, it is necessary to create a multinational organization consisting of a democratic election. If we draw on the ideas presented by Wendell Gordon, we see how this can be put into practice. If we divide the world up into geopolitical regions or districts and hold elections for representation in the General Assembly, than we allow for a true representation of more pressing issues rather than only the self-interested views of the major powers.

Don't get me wrong, I support the United States full on and believe that as the nations leading superpower, it is important for us to kick-start this process. It cannot be done without us. But, the entire world needs to realize that borders are a thing of the past and that it is time we take the next teleological step in political evolution towards a cosmopolis rather than a nation-state.

Eric, its the 1st amendment that they were exercising, not the 5th. The fifth protects people from self-incrimination, though I've never really seen the point of its existence. All it ever does is make people look very guilty.

We should not obey international law, we should be the law. The USA did not throw a temper tantrum, the other countries with real oil interests, globalism, left wing leaning populations, and paranoia of Muslims did (France, Russia, etc.). The USA had to break the UN law's essentially in order to enforce them, which though absurd was entirely justified considering that since its formation the UN has failed to deal with dictators, illegal arms and drug trafficking deals, and other serious matters. The problem is, if the law prevents justice it is not legitimate, I think the perfectly legal government terrorism of Saddam's dictatorship was proof of that.

What the USA did was stand up to a corrupt and notoriously anti-American international organization. The UN passed hundreds of pointless resolutions and laws that were either not enforced or had negative consequences. For instance, the UN once nearly passed a blatantly anti-Semitic "Zionism is racism" resolution that would have crippled Israel and given the Palestinians more power. The idea that the UN must be obeyed at all times by the USA is ridiculous, especially when the French, Chinese, and Russians continue to use it to further their own economic and political agendas and anti-American sentiments.

The U.N. can be saved if it's reformed. We need to get rid of the veto on the U.N. security council. We also need to redefine the role of the United Nations. The U.N. should only make laws concerning human rights and other humanitarian issues. We should create a new international organization that deals with terrorism. And the new organization should blacklist terrorist nations from being in the org. Same goes for human rights violators in the U.N. And in the future, the U.S. should start obeying international whether they like it or not instead of throwing temeper tantrums.

Oh? So if I take a boat into international waters and say, "America sucks," should I be arrested?

Eric, it's the First Amendment, and the Dixie Chicks spoke out in England, not the U.S. - therefore, they don't have the U.S. Constitutional Freedom of Speech in another country. Period.

The UN right now is a bad joke, pure and simple. Any organization which places Libya in charge of Human Rights, which continues to do nothing to stop dictators, is not to be taken seriously. The UN has attempted to keep trade sanctions on Iraq despite the regime change just to spite Bush, and has continually shown an anti-American and anti-Isreali bias in its laws. Also, many countries within the UN have an unfair advantage in terms of representation and power, and continue to use the UN to further their own agendas (France, Russia, Germany, and China all come to mind). We shouldn't just exit the UN, we should make it exit North American soil forever unless it somehow miraculously cleans up its act and stops being such a corrupt appeasing international entity, or else we will have another League of Nations yet again.

Eric, Amiri Baraki is an anti-Semitic, black power socialist (anti-white black leftist). He has admitted that he is communist, as have many of the antiwar movement's protesters. The majority of the public mocks people like the Dixie Chicks and Amiri because they are so obviously extremists, and misinformed ones at that. The problem for the antiwar movement right now is that the vast majority of there speaker's are of the Michael Moore variety rather than the Vietnam satirists and serious debaters a generation ago. In effect, they are leftists that have become so out of touch with reality that they have lost all credibility, often famous and wealthy ones at that in the case of celebrities (so called "Limousine Liberals" due to their wealth).

Actually mag, Saddam Hussein had been funding Palestinian terrorists for years, and recently the military and government have begun connecting him to Al Queda. Saddam in essence supported terrorism and fundamentalists, though he repressed the Shiites out of fear of a fundamentalist uprising. The Iraqi government was supporting terror, building chemical weapons, squandering oil and humanitarian aid money, and also oppressing its people.

So in retaliation, the US government attacked to gain a new democracy, antiterrorist state, and trade source in the middle east. That was the reasoning behind this whole war, and its been for the most part been proved correct. My main skepticism of this war was that the United States never really finished what it started in Afghanistan, and that was the whole reason we got involved seriously in the middle east to begin with.

Yes of course Americans can speak out their minds whatever sentiments there is. Everyone begs to be heard, sometimes we're just too confused to listen.

I hope the UN doesn't dissapear, its totally great, just take a visit there in New York sometime its the greatest place I've ever been to, I learned so much on that trip and its so interesting in there...I mean I don't really no diddly squat about what goes on politically in there but...hey just the name "united Nations" is great, and I think just having it brings us hope that the world isn't quite as crappy as we think...(or maybe it is....)

Our alliances are failing. Many countries do not support us when we need help. There is hate between the people. In the near future there may be an all out war between the U.N. members. Face it the U.N. may fall soon.

I do think that as Americans, we do hove the right to speak out, but this right is limited. If anyone speaks out against what is happening in the US government, or even local, depending on the issue it is ridiculed. For example the dixie Chicks, Amari Baraka, and a number of others have been bashed for execising thier 5th amendment.
So to a degree there is an amount of freedom of speech, as long as you don't step out of your boundaries.