The Global Treaty Organization

[12th Doctor]

Listen, can we move this bill up to the top of Senate business.  I think it is kinda important

I disagree; we have the UN, and this is just a UN-substitute.  I mean, I'm not saying I'm completely opposed to this (I'd rather hear more arguments than "WHY IS FRANCE NOT IN THIS I LOVE FRANCE " and "OMG I HATE FRANCE FRANCE SUCKS FRANCE SHOULD DIE"), but since we already have an international peacekeeping body I don't think this is particularly urgent.

For the third time... France is not included become the French have recused themselves from the security portion of NATO.  The fact that France will not even keep to a commitment which they made in defense of Europe leads me to believe that they would hardly be interested in joining a similar organization that handles world affairs.

This organization is for memebers who are seriously commited to the ideals of the organization and are, in fact, willing to work to defend them.

As for the United Nations.  The UN charter compels the members states to act, agressively and defensively, using preemptive strikes, if need be, in order to defend the rights of free nations.  When was the last time, since Korea that this has acctually happened?  The answer is never.  Not once.

In the UN, every country, no matter how immoral, illegitament (except, of course, Tiawan) agressive, idiotic, etc., etc. gets a seat at the table.  When the UN does act, at all, it is not in the spirit of the Article 51, but rather in a weak, unresolved, unresponsive way.

GTO troops will not be "peace-keepers".  They will have the ability to act, rather than just stand by and watch innocent people get slaughtered.  There will be no "don't fire unless fired upon" doctrine.  GTO troops will have a mission, and that mission will allow them to do what is right, not only in the face of God, but also in the face of basic human rights and natural law.

[Jake]

Damn JCar how do you f**king manage to be such an annoying little sh**t?

He's a leftist and he's 12. That combination almost always results in a total moron.

[jerusalemcar5]

Listen, can we move this bill up to the top of Senate business.  I think it is kinda important

I disagree; we have the UN, and this is just a UN-substitute.  I mean, I'm not saying I'm completely opposed to this (I'd rather hear more arguments than "WHY IS FRANCE NOT IN THIS I LOVE FRANCE " and "OMG I HATE FRANCE FRANCE SUCKS FRANCE SHOULD DIE"), but since we already have an international peacekeeping body I don't think this is particularly urgent.

For the third time... France is not included become the French have recused themselves from the security portion of NATO.  The fact that France will not even keep to a commitment which they made in defense of Europe leads me to believe that they would hardly be interested in joining a similar organization that handles world affairs.

This organization is for memebers who are seriously commited to the ideals of the organization and are, in fact, willing to work to defend them.

As for the United Nations.  The UN charter compels the members states to act, agressively and defensively, using preemptive strikes, if need be, in order to defend the rights of free nations.  When was the last time, since Korea that this has acctually happened?  The answer is never.  Not once.

In the UN, every country, no matter how immoral, illegitament (except, of course, Tiawan) agressive, idiotic, etc., etc. gets a seat at the table.  When the UN does act, at all, it is not in the spirit of the Article 51, but rather in a weak, unresolved, unresponsive way.

GTO troops will not be "peace-keepers".  They will have the ability to act, rather than just stand by and watch innocent people get slaughtered.  There will be no "don't fire unless fired upon" doctrine.  GTO troops will have a mission, and that mission will allow them to do what is right, not only in the face of God, but also in the face of basic human rights and natural law.

We need the UN and a forum between nations.  Not a let's kill all the dcitatrs argh! war mongering organization, which apparently the GTO is.  It would involve us in too many wars and this could cause World War III because of the wars it could lead to.

And NATO was founded to protect against the USSR, it is no longer necessary since the USSR disbanded.  No country has a reason to sacrifice forces for it anymore.  France can send troops when necessary.



Also, I now see Preston and Jake's comments.  At least I say something with substance and something that can be debated.  Not something I can EVER say for you too.

[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.

[12th Doctor]

We need the UN and a forum between nations.  Not a let's kill all the dcitatrs argh! war mongering organization, which apparently the GTO is.  It would involve us in too many wars and this could cause World War III because of the wars it could lead to.

Thanks, but the pact is largely defensive and we would only act when called upon, as is clearly stated and could be easily understood by any high schooler who read the treay.  Looks like we missed you by two years, short-stuff.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Check a history book, please.  France left the NATO security force in the 60's.  And the role of NATO is NOT negated by the fall of the USSR, because "defense against the Soviet Union" is not stated anywhere in the treaty.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would make sense if... well, what you were saying did.

[Ebowed]

Well, I oppose this for the simple reason that the choice of countries seems completely rediculous and arbritrary.

It is neither.  More countries will be able to apply as soon as we have all joined in.  And the reasons for the selection of countries have already been explained:

Anyway, off the record, the reason these countries were choosen is because:

1) I wanted to have countries from each of the continents as founding members.

2) I wanted to pick only countries that I thought lived up to the ideals of the treaty.

3) I did not want to give off the initial appearance that this woudl be an Anglo-Amero-Euro dominated Organization.

4) I didn't have the time to negotiate the thing with 25 different countries and accomidate all their little demands, so I went to just these 8 countries first.

[jerusalemcar5]

We need the UN and a forum between nations.  Not a let's kill all the dcitatrs argh! war mongering organization, which apparently the GTO is.  It would involve us in too many wars and this could cause World War III because of the wars it could lead to.

Thanks, but the pact is largely defensive and we would only act when called upon, as is clearly stated and could be easily understood by any high schooler who read the treay.  Looks like we missed you by two years, short-stuff.

That is exactly why it will lead to many wars, soulty.  The fact that it is when called upon could lead to Taiwan calling for all out war against China, India calling for all out war against Pakistan because one soldier killed ther soldier.  It is vague and asks too little.  Anyone could see that obvious issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Check a history book, please.  France left the NATO security force in the 60's.  And the role of NATO is NOT negated by the fall of the USSR, because "defense against the Soviet Union" is not stated anywhere in the treaty.[/quote]

I was interested by this and did a quick check.  France has been a member of the integrated command for 13 years since it rejoined in 1993 and was part of the NATO force in the Balkans. France did not leave due to their hatred for security, it was a legitimate political concern that the United States ignored.  Obviously that isn't in the treaty, but it was the obvious and well known intent.  It lost a lot of its original purpose when the Soviet Union fell.

[12th Doctor]

That is exactly why it will lead to many wars, soulty.  The fact that it is when called upon could lead to Taiwan calling for all out war against China, India calling for all out war against Pakistan because one soldier killed ther soldier.  It is vague and asks too little.  Anyone could see that obvious issue.

I really don't even get the point you are trying to make.  Read the treaty.  We don't just automatically go to war, unless one fo the treaty memebers is attacked... not goes to war... attacked.

Article 5 is the only time that the security clause is automatic.  The organization will never be compeled to go to war otherwise, without a 7/10 majority in favor.

As for what you are saying about India, the treaty has a propotionality clause built into it.  Look at Article 5

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you think this treay is vague... look at the NATO treaty.  I used it as a template for this one, and ours is far more detailed than that one.

Moreover, I see this all this fear mongering about non-European states as being strongly rooted in racist sentiment.  India is the largest democracy is the world, but it seems like, because they are "Brown People," the view is that they obviously cannot comport themselves in a dignified and measured manner.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah... the problem is obvious, France is a country that sticks to a stringently realist foriegn policy... "What is best for France right now, regardless of alliances, human rights, democratic expansion?"  This organization is obviously not based on realist ideaology.

Also, thanks for proving my point.  France rejoined NATO when the Russian threat was not long imminant.  Thanks guys.

[jerusalemcar5]

I'll accept that though the treaty calls for aggression, wars would not be the appropriate term.

Moreover, I see this all this fear mongering about non-European states as being strongly rooted in racist sentiment.  India is the largest democracy is the world, but it seems like, because they are "Brown People," the view is that they obviously cannot comport themselves in a dignified and measured manner.

India and Pakistan have already fought several wars, India refuses to sign the NPT while developing nuclear weaponry.  There is room for serious concern with India, regardless of it being a democracy.  And don't slander me by calling me a racist when you have no evidence of the fact.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That French foreign policy has never been played out.  France of course honors its alliances and has come a long way in human rights since the colonial era.  They have no supported forceful democratic expansion because war is almost never justified, but strongly supported peaceful expansion.

Also, France remained an active member of NATO that would have fought the USSR had war with NATO ever erupted.  The withdrawal from NATO security forces was a largely symbolic political statement. 

[12th Doctor]

Allow me to ellaborate a bit more on my earlier condemnation of France.

Let's go back to Vietnam, for starters.  In the early 50's, every NATO country, including the US, urged the French to give up on Indo-China, and just allow it independence.  The French, however, did not want to drop the issue, not because of any concern for the people of that area, or communism, but because the French didn't want to give up on their empire.  It was the only thing that made them a global power, even after the British had finally given up on their empire.  The French acctually created the communist problem in South East Asia, because their occupation was used as a tool by the communists to recruit members and rail against Western agression.

Anyway, the United States finally had to get involved to prevent the utter annialation of the French Army, and the French settled a peace treaty.  Well, the communists were in power, thanks to France, so the country had to be split between North and South to prevent the whole thing from falling under communism.  Then we had to send troops, not to secure an empire, like the French, but rather to keep the communists from taking over.

And who were the biggest non-communist critics of American involvement in Vietnam... why, the French of course.  They then turned aroudn and used it as a platform to rail against American power.

It appears that they were more angry at us for stepping in and urging an end to their (real) imperialism, than they were happy for the fact that we stopped their military from getting destroyed.

Anyway, France left the NATO security force, because they felt that the United States had too much power, and they hated the idea of reality.  They wanted to be powerful.  They were also upset because NATO was expanding influence into georaphic spheres (such as North Africa) that they considered to be French spheres of influence only.  And that was more imporant to them than a united front against the Warsaw Pact.

Anyway, it was around this time that they looked around and realized that they had no real power left on the world stage (except that one little vote on the UN Security Council, and have they milked that thing ever since) so that is when France's official foriegn policy became something known as the "Gaulist (or Gaulleist, after Charles DeGaulle) Dream.  Basically, the idea was that they were going to use their influence with other countries, particulalry in Europe, as a means of setting up a rival superpower to the US and USSR that would be controled, at least in part, by France.

French FP has been guided by this idea ever since, which is exactly why it has become so strictly realist.  The collapse of the USSR meant that they no longer had to be so hostile to NATO, cause it wasn't what it was, so they rejoined.  However, any idiot can see the infullence of French realism in the current realm of world affairs.  Just look at France's attempts to set up rivial coalitions to the US (France, Gemrnay, Russia - France, China).

So, if you want to long version of why France does not belong, there it is.  Any other questions?

[12th Doctor]

I'll accept that though the treaty calls for aggression, wars would not be the appropriate term.

Moreover, I see this all this fear mongering about non-European states as being strongly rooted in racist sentiment.  India is the largest democracy is the world, but it seems like, because they are "Brown People," the view is that they obviously cannot comport themselves in a dignified and measured manner.

India and Pakistan have already fought several wars, India refuses to sign the NPT while developing nuclear weaponry.  There is room for serious concern with India, regardless of it being a democracy.  And don't slander me by calling me a racist when you have no evidence of the fact.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That French foreign policy has never been played out.  France of course honors its alliances and has come a long way in human rights since the colonial era.  They have no supported forceful democratic expansion because war is almost never justified, but strongly supported peaceful expansion.

Also, France remained an active member of NATO that would have fought the USSR had war with NATO ever erupted.  The withdrawal from NATO security forces was a largely symbolic political statement. 

Okay, you know what... like I just told Ebowed, I hate to do this, but listen up:

You are how old, 13 or so?  I normally don't use my credentials in an argument, because they don't make me right.  But I am a senior college student with a major in political science and a minor in history, with a specilization in foreign policy and global studies who is planning pursuit a masters in Global Politics and Foreign Relations/Affrairs... so please don't lecture me like I just fell off the fu**ing turnup truck.

And yeah, I could go into considerable legths about how that policy has been playout by the French, as I think I just did.

[Democratic Hawk]

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'

[jerusalemcar5]

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. 

[Democratic Hawk]

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 lost confidence in the United Nations over Iraq. It has slowly become a tiger with no teeth as a consequence of them becoming rotten from within

Dave 'Hawk'

[jerusalemcar5]

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 lost confidence in the United Nations over Iraq. It has slowly become a tiger with no teeth as a consequence of them becoming rotten from within

Dave 'Hawk'

So you're saying it needs reform, which this treaty would do, I don't understand how that refutes my point.

Also, how is the United Nations weak for not attacking a cooperating nation that posed no threat to the outside world?  That wouldn't even meet GTO standards.

[Hatman 🍁]

jcar, Dave thought the war was justified. He likes his oil.

[Democratic Hawk]

jcar, Dave thought the war was justified. He likes his oil.

I, for one, actually support Atlasia being energy independent from the Middle East

Dave 'Hawk'

[Hatman 🍁]

jcar, Dave thought the war was justified. He likes his oil.

I, for one, actually support Atlasia being energy independent from the Middle East

Dave 'Hawk'

That's good, but it doesn't explain why you support the Iraq war. I mean foreign intervention is needed in some places, but I'd say somewhere like North Korea is more of a threat than Iraq.

[12th Doctor]

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.

[12th Doctor]

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"

By first world, you mean European, right?  I have address every concern that has been brought up in concerns to the fact that more European nations were nto included as charet members.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a GLOBAL Treaty.  There are more places on this Earth than Western Europe.  Well, of course, we also like Japan, because they have adapted to western culture very well.

I didn;t care about economics, when I wrote this.  I cared about which countries I thought would make a commitment to the goals of the treaty.

Other nations will be invited in.  It is just that, for now, my goal was to create a truely global organiztion dedicated to preserving and protecting democratic ideals.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, thank you, but I hardly see what you would have against Brazil and Colombia.  The Colmbian government is democratic.  And they are key in fighting against the drug cartels.  Brazil has been pretty much without problems for a while now, even though thier economy is a bit unstable.

[jerusalemcar5]

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.  

[12th Doctor]

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.

[jerusalemcar5]

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.

[ilikeverin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, thank you, but I hardly see what you would have against Brazil and Colombia.  The Colmbian government is democratic.  And they are key in fighting against the drug cartels.  Brazil has been pretty much without problems for a while now, even though thier economy is a bit unstable.

What Super said.  Colombia I'm a little iffy about, seeing that the founding members of this are supposed to be 'major powers' (then again, South Africa isn't very "major" either), but Brazil definitely has a place here.  People really need to start realizing Brazil's vital position in South America.

[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.