From:	Doctor Doom <JCH8169@********.BITNET>
Subject:	Regarding the United Nations...in response to RAMboy
Date:	Thu, 11 Mar 93 17:41:00 CST

>>>>>[ RAMboy, obviously you have permitted yourself to be taken in by the
propaganda as presented by the world press associations.

According to the United Nation's charter, the organization is dedicated to the
preservation of peace, a mission it failed at during the EuroWars. The United
Nations has become afflicted with the problems experienced by its predecessor,
the League of Nations, and has thus lapsed into a state of being largely
ineffectual.

Fact: The organization has done precious little since the resolution of
hostilities in 2033. Most nations, at best, pay it marginal "lip service" when
it comes to its infrequent edicts, such that even in your own government the
UCAS Ambassador to the United Nations is no longer considered a choice
political appointment.

And you are quite incorrect as to your postulation that the United Nations are
the first thing Europeans have uniformly agreed upon. The League of Nations
was formed in the wake of World War I, with most European nations participating
in the new union; although it soon proved quite ineffectual.

And as to your implications that we Europeans (although, given the range and
scope of the cultures on this continent, grouping us together seems rather
inappropriate) are a war-mongering group of peoples, to quote you:

"What is it about the Euros that makes them fight so much? It seems to me you
guys just don't know how to share a micro-continent effectively and are too
rooted in your primitive tribal rivalries to actually get along with one
another."

What makes us fight so much?

Although I feel that explaining the intricities of European diplomacy beyond
the scope of this B.B.S., even undertaking such a proposition giving your
limited American's-eye-view would make it profoundly difficult, still I am
ne'er one to turn down an intellectual challenge:

The fact is, that our little "micro-continent", as you so refer to it, is the
birthplace of many and varied cultures and, later, nations. It is a fact
exhibited throughout history that peoples with different cultures, different
LANGUAGES, will experience friction with one another. The interest of a
particular people will INEVITABLY come into conflict with another's. Further,
this phenomena is by no means limited to Europe.

Permit me to illustrate this with your country's own history:

Who was here first? The Native American tribes. And what did most colonists
take to (some sooner, some later) in their association with these peoples, with
their comparatively alien cultures and customs? Why, WAR with these tribes.

I might ask you, mein Herr, as to why YOUR forefathers could not share and EVEN
LARGER continent with the native inhabitants already present there. You might
counter with the fact that early colonists were nothing more than displaced
Europeans. However, I would riposte with inquiring as to policies of the new
American government. Did these hostilities, intermittent up until the latter
part of the 1800s (such as in the War of 1812 and the Indian Wars much later in
the century), cease because your country managed to come to an equitable
solution with the Indians? Ganz und gar nicht! Through FORCE OF ARMS, your
ancestors interred them on reservations.

The only reason open warfare has not become extinct on the European continent
is that no single nation has succeeded in either completely destroying or
incarcerating the myriad other cultures. If anything, following the American
model, you should accuse us of not being quite so proficient at destroying our
enemies, at breaking their will, as the United States.

Further, how many miserable little wars did your country experience, or almost
experience, with England? Is the Atlantic Ocean not bit enough for the both of
you?

Also, to your peculiar tangent upon the break-up of the former United States:

You are missing my point entirely. I never implied the UN should have
prevented the dismemberment of the American republic. I was simply attempting
to illustrate the fact that since the time of its dissolution, its successor,
the UCAS, simply is NOT the power America once was.

In line with this, I was expressing the fact that the selections for permanent
members of the UN Security Council are hopelessly out of date. Russia, France,
and America are presently impotent, especially when compared to their
predecessors. If anything, Aztlan and the Confederate American States are the
powers on the North American continent, NOT UCAS. And as to Europe, well...it
certainly is not France, but I believe that England does still merit its
position.

My final point, upon which I shall close:

As to the question of the UN's effectiveness, I would refute the hypothesis
that it hinges upon its inclination to do so. Admittedly, this may have been
the case in the twentieth century. And yes, I do agree many nations did use
the United Nations as a tool for legitimizing their actions to the
international community, with various results. Today, however, most of the
major powers are content to permit individuals to call forth for global unity
in the United Nations General Assembly room, whilst going merrily on their way
out in the real world. ]<<<<<
-- Doctor Doom <17:25:50/03-11-54>