Okay macspectrum..who caused
most of the world hunger? Does it exist in free Nations? If not...then WHY not? Please explain.
Ten years ago the countries of Eastern Europe used to hover on the edge of starvation. Now they are pretty well-fed. What changed? Please explain.
Ten years ago the people of Russia were lined up for hours to buy a few sparse scraps of food from whatever government-run shop was open. They would even line up whenever they SAW a lineup...just to get whatever was available. These days, they have a lot of problems, but food lineups and near starvation are not a part of it. What changed? Please explain.
Ten years ago the people of Zimbabwe were largely well-fed. Now they are starving. What changed? Please explain.
Cuba and North Korea are on the brink of starvation (the latter IS starving, the former is almost there). Both of those countries have enough arable land to feed themselves, a very well educated population, and an industrial base that should provide the sort of prosperity that we currently enjoy.
What change could you make in those two countries that would solve the basic problem of "not enough food"?
Would you recommend more of the same...or a radical change from a failed system? Please explain.
And why are all of the free democracies largely free of this basic problem? And pretty much immune to famine and the variations of weather?
(I recall when, in the early eighties, the Soviet government was still blaming crop failures and food shortages on "damage to the fields from World War Two". FORTY YEARS LATER! When all of the other (free) countries of Europe had recovered, and were basking in wealth and an abundance of food. What a crock!)
So...I just have to ask....
50 billion to "cure world hunger" or 70 billion to remove Saddam. What, exactly, would you be "curing" when you spent that 50 billion?
Would that 50 billion just buy food for some of these poor humans for a year...or would it actually solve
the problem and let them stand on their own two feet afterwards? Forevermore...without some dictator screwing up the works and distorting the economy however he pleases?
Think about it.
The dictator certainly doesn't care...he's ALWAYS got enough to eat. He doesn't give a flying f*ck about the people he rules over. As long as he gets what he wants, he's happy. Screw the rest. It doesn't matter. THEY don't matter.
And when that same dictator sends one of his minions to represent his country at the UN, do you suppose that the will of his people even enters into the question when the votes are cast? Do you suppose he even CARES? If so..why? Please explain.
And macspectrum...I think that you have, yet again, managed to misread things with regards to my proposal of "no absoloute monarchs" in the NEW UN.
You say that Canada would be eliminated from membership in the NEW UN because we have a Queen.
In what way is our Queen an "Absoloute Monarch"??!? Does she have any real say in the way that our country is Governed? Is she, somehow, an "absolute monarch"? If so, please explain.
Now.....I can see how having a long-term ruler with sweeping powers and no real scheduled election dates as being a serious detriment to admission in the NEW UN. That is a problem that I expect ALL Canadians to resolve in fairly short order. We really need to address this. It is not indicative of a true democracy, after all.
It's something LIKE one...and we all do get a choice in our government, at some point.
But we're not quite there, when all is said and done. Canada is a near-democracy. We have a vote and a voice...for one single day out of every five years. The rest of the time we are pretty much powerless. No voice. No recourse. No way to really affect the government that a regional minority of us elected so many years ago.
Same goes for Denmark. Certainly for Monaco. And for several other countries.
Close to democracy. Very close. But no cigar.
The NEW UN would not be made up of countries who do not have total democracy. Close is not good enough. It would only get you "probation", or "potential member" status.
Want to join the club? As a voting member? Fine, become a real democracy. Let every one of your people vote in regularly scheduled elections without any coercion or repurcussions. Let them have their say...no matter what their background or religion or whatever. At a regular date. And let the whole world observe this process, up close and personal.
THEN we'd have a real, and very effective UN. One that represents the thoughts and wishes of EVERY person in EVERY Nation that was a member.
And THAT might actually work
, for a change.
A real force for peace and prosperity in the world. A valid group who were all on the same page.
What a difference THAT would be!