The Global Treaty Organization

[jokerman]

Well, I'm sure that other democracies will be admitted later after the initial ratification by the founding nations

This is overall an excellent plan.

[jokerman]

And this Treaty doesn't really resemble the UN in any way at all.  It is much preferable to the U.N. in security aspects, because it includes only democracies and is committed to fighting terrorism and other problems, but still doesn't supplant the obvious values of the UN in hummanitarian efforts that we should still participate in.

And as far as the complaints over the nations involved, I think this is ridiculous.  The Treaty will be completely open for new nations to join once it is ratified, but it would simply be unnecessary and cumbersome to have a large number of countries participate in the founding.

[jokerman]

I'm just a little dismayed by the absence of many First World nations as being proposed parties to the Treaty. Lets face it, it should be the First World "singing the tune" and t'others "dancing along to it"

The starting point of the Global Treaty should be at the top (for example, Atlasia, Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan). As other nations advance, both economically and politically, then I'd be more than happy to consider them for membership

Still the Treaty in itself is very principled and it addresses the global challenges we face and while I have misgivings about the inclusion of the likes of Colombia and Brazil, I will be giving it my full support

'Hawk'

May I ask why you don't support this as a means of reform in the United Nations?  Why do we need yet another organization to deal with needs that should be addressed by the UN?  Also, it sounds like you support a NATO expansion, which I agree with and was apparently also supported by Supersoulty. 

I invite you to carry a series of reform proposals to the United Nations... acctually, they don't even have to be reform proposals, if the UN followed its own charter, then there would be no problem.  Anyway, I invite you to do, and see what kinda reception you get from Kim Jung Il, Vladimir Putin, Fidel Castro, Gaddafi and the Chinese Leadership.  I think they like the UN just fine the way it is now, and they have about 50 other dictators, and 50 more countries who just don't have any interest in it, who would all agree with them.

Secondly, had you been paying attention to my point, as I said, I initially supported expanding NATO into a global role, but I realized that the idea was oppsed to the spirit and language of the NATO charter, so I dropped the idea and opted for this instead.

Except of the 191 (did Monetenegro actually get accepted by the GA, if so 192) member states are mostly democracies that suppport reform, especially of the Security Council so it could be more active.  The main issue I have with the GTO is it allows troops to be deployed to regions too quickly, I believe, yes not war, but you deem it yourself to be "considered aggressive by many".  I believe if aggression is truly warranted, the UN can handle it.  Or the Atlasia can form a coalition of the willing like they did ore-Atlasia in 2003.  

Okay... lets step outta Atlas fantasy land here for a second...

How is the great reform movement going so far?  How far has John Bolton gotten?  How many wonderful reforms have been made?  How is Kofi helping the process along?

The answers are: Not well.  No where.  None.  Not at all.

Why do I care what John Bolton has or hasn't done?  I am not John Bolton. Of course, I believe the United Nations is fine as it is, with the exception of a needed expansion on the Security Council, so I don't want reform.

I'm glad you like rampant corruption.  You're fired, Senator.