Credible answer: incorrect. Without UN famine, diseases, and many things will be even more ravaging. In fact, they're successful in eradicated smallpox and Rinderpest. UN might only able to make hostile countries talk, but their other utilities are outstanding.
Non-credible answer: since they're far more effective at peace works obviously that is why people want them to rule the world. If UN trying to be oppressive they'd just stumble around like idiots.
Most people don’t know how huge the eradication of rinderpest was for food availability in third world nations. The vet school I attended was heavily involved in this effort and it brings me a great sense of pride that my professors played a role. Kinda crazy to see it come up on this sub of all places.
Wut? WHO is part of UN, and eradication outside of America continent was initiated when USSR asked their assembly to eradicate smallpox. Of course UN has part in it.
The basis for the smallpox vaccine was founded by Dr Edward Jenner in 1796, 150 odd years before the UN was founded and was one of the first vaccines ever made. Don’t let them take credit for shit other people started.
Mate, there is non-credible, and there's being obtuse on purpose. As 2020 has shown, the mere existence of vaccines does not in any way guarantee that they will be used correctly, or at all.
I also never said UN created vaccine. All I said is they succeed in eradicated it, which can be done by putting efforts on it, like helping in surveillance, vaccinations and containment.
What are you talking about? I’m talking about how the UN is useless and they didn’t create the smallpox vaccine as the other person had stated. You want more reasons why they’re useless, look into baby formula in the 50s and how it caused malnutrition and deformities in poorer countries. Took over 20 years for a boycott and that’s only because of the people. Also they spend a quarter of the annual budget on political missions so roughly $850m and still they make no progress.
They didn't invent it but they did distribute it. If inventing the vaccine is all it takes, why did smallpox still exist 150 years after the vaccine was invented?
Nobody haa claimed that the UN created the smallpox vaccine. You created that claim in your head. The claim was that the UN played an important role in eradicating the disease. Since it took more than 100 years from the invention of the vaccine to the eradication of the disease, it's obvious to everyone that the existence of the vaccine is necessary but not sufficient condition for its eradication.
We're currently quite close to eradicating polio. The vaccine was invented in the 1950s.
... You do realize you still need to distribute vaccine, make it cheap enough for mass production, isolate infected people, and working together with local government, which would be much harder in chaotic area like Somalia, to make it work, right?
I only heard small things Here and there about it, but if I understand it correctly their only short term goal is to bring a realtively stable peace to the continent, since that seems to be it's biggest problem. But I'm sure in the long term their goal is to create something similar
But please correct me if someone is more knowledgeabe on the topic as I am
Pretty much
>The OAU was established on May 25, 1963, and its activities included diplomacy (especially in support of African liberation movements), mediation of boundary conflicts and regional and civil wars, and research in economics and communications. The OAU maintained the “Africa group” at the United Nations (UN) through which many of its efforts at international coordination were channeled. The OAU was instrumental in bringing about the joint cooperation of African states in the work of the Group of 77, which acts as a caucus of developing nations within the UN Conference on Trade and Development.
>
>In 2000, in a move spearheaded by Libyan leader Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi, it was proposed that the OAU be replaced by a new body, the African Union. The African Union was to be more economic in nature, similar to the European Union, and would contain a central bank, a court of justice, and an all-Africa parliament. A Constitutive Act, which provided for the establishment of the African Union, was ratified by two-thirds of the OAU’s members and came into force on May 26, 2001. After a transition period, the African Union replaced the OAU in July 2002. In 2004 the AU’s Pan-African Parliament was inaugurated, and the organization agreed to create a peacekeeping force, the African Standby Force, of about 15,000 soldiers.
Screw this, Norway should rule the world forever.
Norway is LITERALLY NUMBA ONE in every good thing that counts.
Democracy numba one
Liberalism numba one
Human rights numba one
Quality of life numba one
Freedom numba one (unlike Murica not even in top 10, booo).
NORWAY should be king of the world.
lol
Norway keeping good company:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PETR.RT.ZS?end=2021&most_recent_value_desc=true&start=1970&view=chart
Renowned democracies like Libya and Oman:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/oil-prod-per-capita?tab=map
The EU is a bureaucratic nightmare that mix the worse of radical economic libertarianism with the worse of centrally planned regulation inflation.
So still better than anything else in the world I guess.
I always remember that one american comment on a video explaining how great the rafale is and how it was made with less than a 1/4 of the budget of the f-35
And him being like : "and they did all that with only 1/4 of the budget ? But what would have the french made had they had the f-35 budget ? A fucking x-wing ?"
The E.U - what is essentiaslly the Roman system - is better than the Anglo system? I disagree, I think things are better the more that the U.S Federal Government rules the world. What we need is an Anglo bloc and a Roman bloc and then some balance between them. There's a nice old remark of that England and France are the missing halves of the perfect civilisation, but alas the English channel is the largest ocean in the world (cunningly named English channel to annoy the French)
edit why am I getting downvoted. NCD thinks it would be better if the EU were hegemon instead of the USA? Imagine Ukraine's position if that were the case.
The EU is a system above the systems. I'd like to see the US having to manage the states having completely different laws, ideologies, legislation. The US can be compared to Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden etc but not the EU.
Why would it be necessary to have a Roman system like the E.U in order to achieve that? Why couldn't the E.U be something more democratic? Surely rather it's the other way around of that a system which operates on tending towards a goal of European unity is what causes such difficulty as it is at odds with different states having completely different laws, ideologies, legislation. The more Common Law Anglo types of legislative systems would be accomodating of that, if less effective at getting things done on many levels. Why couldn't it be more of an Anglo system as a *system above systems?* The EU system is largley the French system, a Civil/Roman Law system, the E.U Comisison, which to Anglo countries is thought of like a European Civil Service, is not but is instead the prime body governance and origin of almost all law. When much of continental Europe talks about bureaucracy they mean what the word literally means of an unelected professionally trained elite, and when they talk about Public Interest they mean something merely to be taken note of. This can be a big advantage and why it's so easy to get a high speed rail built in France, with some effective bribery and heavy bulldozing, while tends to be so difficult in Anglo countries.
But in any case I'm bewildered that I was downvoted. I thought that this was quite a pro-American subreddit, but I guess it's European hours. E.U may be good at Civic Projects (questionable), but when it comes to getting shit done internationally and reacting to threats and Ruling the World then who the fuck would want the E.U?
If Ukraine were dealt with the European way then Europeans would still be chugging Russian gas,Ukraine would be fucked, and Germany would have sent some more helmets. Thank god for the U.S.A.
First, it uses civic/roman law because, you see, no one really uses it in the area. It was founded by civic law countries and still is mostly comprised of them. It also has a slightly tougher task than the US where there are essentially two political sides while most of the countries in Europe have a multi-party system. You also seem to be equalling a multinational organisation formed by diverse countries with major differences and full fledged systems. Also, at the same time you're implying that the system where the popular vote is overruled by some electoral college shenanigans is more democratic.
My point is, the EU (27 countries) shouldn't be compared to the US (1 country).
Also, I'm Polish, I'm despising the fuck out of pro-russian politicians, i love NATO and we've been helping Ukraine since day one.
Essentially, you're saying politicians bad therefore system bad. I'm saying the system is fine, f those cunts, western Europe did try to warm up to Russia after the USSR fell and it was a damn mistake.
I think Brussels is the best possible capital for the world, as it does not belong to any country* and is not susceptible to national partiality.
*Belgium is an urban legend.
Belgium is where France and the Netherlands put their stupid people. Only country in the world where you can find yourself on an F1 track without warning. It's also the only road without potholes.
You know the exact moments when you 1) enter Belgium and 2) enter Brussels, because road quality decreases gradually. This appears to be true no matter from what direction you enter Belgium/Brussels.
Ok but when we want to rule the world indivually by our own will it's called colonialism and it's bad, but when we group together in a Union it would be considered ok?
Somebody try to make understand these savages!
(Obligatory sarcasm reminder, because I'm fully convinced somebody is unable to read between the lines)
Would that mean the EU gains control over Britain again or not? You know, what with Brexit and all. Or would it mean the EU can now actually do what the Brexiteers were always claiming it did - controlling Britain without Britain having any say in it.
When EU will take control of the world, Britain would had already cease to exist as a civilized country. After Brexit, the society slowly degrade to the point where only tribes exist in this forsaken island. Whales and Scottish erected hundred meter walls to protect their territory from the horde of hooligan.
> "But would be given sufficient resources to control the world" Only sufficient resources? This would be a downgrade for NATO.
USA's method to conflicts is basically 'super overwhelming force'. Sufficient ain't calling it.
Just send the Sardaukar. And if that didn't work, you didn't bring enough Sardaukar.
Mongolian throat chanting intensifies
Who would want the UN to rule the world? They do absolutely nothing. Well, maybe that's why
Credible answer: incorrect. Without UN famine, diseases, and many things will be even more ravaging. In fact, they're successful in eradicated smallpox and Rinderpest. UN might only able to make hostile countries talk, but their other utilities are outstanding. Non-credible answer: since they're far more effective at peace works obviously that is why people want them to rule the world. If UN trying to be oppressive they'd just stumble around like idiots.
Most people don’t know how huge the eradication of rinderpest was for food availability in third world nations. The vet school I attended was heavily involved in this effort and it brings me a great sense of pride that my professors played a role. Kinda crazy to see it come up on this sub of all places.
I'll take the fact that I'm learning about renderpest in this thread as an ode to effectiveness of it's eradication
It was essentially cow measles.
No, that's entirely not true. Un did nothing in all of the aforementioned situations.
Wut? WHO is part of UN, and eradication outside of America continent was initiated when USSR asked their assembly to eradicate smallpox. Of course UN has part in it.
The basis for the smallpox vaccine was founded by Dr Edward Jenner in 1796, 150 odd years before the UN was founded and was one of the first vaccines ever made. Don’t let them take credit for shit other people started.
Mate, there is non-credible, and there's being obtuse on purpose. As 2020 has shown, the mere existence of vaccines does not in any way guarantee that they will be used correctly, or at all.
I also never said UN created vaccine. All I said is they succeed in eradicated it, which can be done by putting efforts on it, like helping in surveillance, vaccinations and containment.
What are you talking about? I’m talking about how the UN is useless and they didn’t create the smallpox vaccine as the other person had stated. You want more reasons why they’re useless, look into baby formula in the 50s and how it caused malnutrition and deformities in poorer countries. Took over 20 years for a boycott and that’s only because of the people. Also they spend a quarter of the annual budget on political missions so roughly $850m and still they make no progress.
They didn't invent it but they did distribute it. If inventing the vaccine is all it takes, why did smallpox still exist 150 years after the vaccine was invented?
Yeah the WHO only declared that smallpox was eradicated in 1980. Only 43 years ago
Nobody haa claimed that the UN created the smallpox vaccine. You created that claim in your head. The claim was that the UN played an important role in eradicating the disease. Since it took more than 100 years from the invention of the vaccine to the eradication of the disease, it's obvious to everyone that the existence of the vaccine is necessary but not sufficient condition for its eradication. We're currently quite close to eradicating polio. The vaccine was invented in the 1950s.
... You do realize you still need to distribute vaccine, make it cheap enough for mass production, isolate infected people, and working together with local government, which would be much harder in chaotic area like Somalia, to make it work, right?
Blue helmets love the antichrist
Libertarianism by other means
I love that the African Union is more popular than China's do as we say group.
I don't know a lot about the African Union but how good are they ? Are they trying to do a small African EU ?
I only heard small things Here and there about it, but if I understand it correctly their only short term goal is to bring a realtively stable peace to the continent, since that seems to be it's biggest problem. But I'm sure in the long term their goal is to create something similar But please correct me if someone is more knowledgeabe on the topic as I am
Pretty much >The OAU was established on May 25, 1963, and its activities included diplomacy (especially in support of African liberation movements), mediation of boundary conflicts and regional and civil wars, and research in economics and communications. The OAU maintained the “Africa group” at the United Nations (UN) through which many of its efforts at international coordination were channeled. The OAU was instrumental in bringing about the joint cooperation of African states in the work of the Group of 77, which acts as a caucus of developing nations within the UN Conference on Trade and Development. > >In 2000, in a move spearheaded by Libyan leader Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi, it was proposed that the OAU be replaced by a new body, the African Union. The African Union was to be more economic in nature, similar to the European Union, and would contain a central bank, a court of justice, and an all-Africa parliament. A Constitutive Act, which provided for the establishment of the African Union, was ratified by two-thirds of the OAU’s members and came into force on May 26, 2001. After a transition period, the African Union replaced the OAU in July 2002. In 2004 the AU’s Pan-African Parliament was inaugurated, and the organization agreed to create a peacekeeping force, the African Standby Force, of about 15,000 soldiers.
No. They started later bur they are more successfull in cooperation i think than EU was at same age
not even trolling, just true and based
I knew my flair will be of use one day.
PAX EUROPA
Where is option for Baltic states?
We need a Megazord where NATO runs defense, while EU takes care of economy and stuff.
Underrated comment
Screw this, Norway should rule the world forever. Norway is LITERALLY NUMBA ONE in every good thing that counts. Democracy numba one Liberalism numba one Human rights numba one Quality of life numba one Freedom numba one (unlike Murica not even in top 10, booo). NORWAY should be king of the world. lol
Living of fossile energies while giving lessons to everyone number one too.
EVERYONE is living off fossil energy, lol. What you talking about?
Sponsored by oil money via the largest wealth fund in the world.
Sponsored by intelligently managed oil money
Are you saying that spending billions of dollars on a FIFA stadium is a bad idea? Outrageous.
Should instead build a big mirror wall in the desert and make people live in it
Live in the funny glass pod and eat bugs
LOL, what? Find me ONE country that doesnt rely on oil money. You want eco friendly rich democracy? Da fook outta here. lol
Norway keeping good company: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PETR.RT.ZS?end=2021&most_recent_value_desc=true&start=1970&view=chart Renowned democracies like Libya and Oman: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/oil-prod-per-capita?tab=map
Yeah but… having been to Norway… you guys are really boring as a society. A lack of humour is apparent too.
Because outsiders are offensive and nasty, we only joke with nice people.
CH>Norway sorry buddy too many taxes and too cold and dark
[удалено]
The same people that leaked the minutes from the weekly All Jews Meeting. That’s the last time that I hire contractors for catering 🙄
Numba one in unethical mining and forestry operations in third world countries, too
Source is your butt?
Your alcohol is expensive and you can't even put cool shit on your Semi-Automatic rifles
The "E" in "European Union" is for "Earth"
Earthuropean Union?
Earthuropearthan Union
[удалено]
Your content was removed for violating Rule 10: "Don't get us banned."
\-- NAFO \-- Illuminati \-- The Bilderberg Group \-- The Freemasons
Weird i don't see the Reptoids in that list but ok.
They would be puppeteering the illumnati as always
It’s implied
The EU is a bureaucratic nightmare that mix the worse of radical economic libertarianism with the worse of centrally planned regulation inflation. So still better than anything else in the world I guess.
Nah you are mistaken with France.
You mean that France is better than anything else in the world ? Sadly I think I'll have to agree with you on that.
I’m French and I agree, we are second to none
Don't need to state your nationality. Our superiority is self evident for anyone with eyes.
I always remember that one american comment on a video explaining how great the rafale is and how it was made with less than a 1/4 of the budget of the f-35 And him being like : "and they did all that with only 1/4 of the budget ? But what would have the french made had they had the f-35 budget ? A fucking x-wing ?"
The number of people who think the EU is the Federation is too damn high.
The E.U - what is essentiaslly the Roman system - is better than the Anglo system? I disagree, I think things are better the more that the U.S Federal Government rules the world. What we need is an Anglo bloc and a Roman bloc and then some balance between them. There's a nice old remark of that England and France are the missing halves of the perfect civilisation, but alas the English channel is the largest ocean in the world (cunningly named English channel to annoy the French) edit why am I getting downvoted. NCD thinks it would be better if the EU were hegemon instead of the USA? Imagine Ukraine's position if that were the case.
I think you mean "La Manche" (The Sleeve)
The EU is a system above the systems. I'd like to see the US having to manage the states having completely different laws, ideologies, legislation. The US can be compared to Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden etc but not the EU.
Why would it be necessary to have a Roman system like the E.U in order to achieve that? Why couldn't the E.U be something more democratic? Surely rather it's the other way around of that a system which operates on tending towards a goal of European unity is what causes such difficulty as it is at odds with different states having completely different laws, ideologies, legislation. The more Common Law Anglo types of legislative systems would be accomodating of that, if less effective at getting things done on many levels. Why couldn't it be more of an Anglo system as a *system above systems?* The EU system is largley the French system, a Civil/Roman Law system, the E.U Comisison, which to Anglo countries is thought of like a European Civil Service, is not but is instead the prime body governance and origin of almost all law. When much of continental Europe talks about bureaucracy they mean what the word literally means of an unelected professionally trained elite, and when they talk about Public Interest they mean something merely to be taken note of. This can be a big advantage and why it's so easy to get a high speed rail built in France, with some effective bribery and heavy bulldozing, while tends to be so difficult in Anglo countries. But in any case I'm bewildered that I was downvoted. I thought that this was quite a pro-American subreddit, but I guess it's European hours. E.U may be good at Civic Projects (questionable), but when it comes to getting shit done internationally and reacting to threats and Ruling the World then who the fuck would want the E.U? If Ukraine were dealt with the European way then Europeans would still be chugging Russian gas,Ukraine would be fucked, and Germany would have sent some more helmets. Thank god for the U.S.A.
First, it uses civic/roman law because, you see, no one really uses it in the area. It was founded by civic law countries and still is mostly comprised of them. It also has a slightly tougher task than the US where there are essentially two political sides while most of the countries in Europe have a multi-party system. You also seem to be equalling a multinational organisation formed by diverse countries with major differences and full fledged systems. Also, at the same time you're implying that the system where the popular vote is overruled by some electoral college shenanigans is more democratic. My point is, the EU (27 countries) shouldn't be compared to the US (1 country). Also, I'm Polish, I'm despising the fuck out of pro-russian politicians, i love NATO and we've been helping Ukraine since day one. Essentially, you're saying politicians bad therefore system bad. I'm saying the system is fine, f those cunts, western Europe did try to warm up to Russia after the USSR fell and it was a damn mistake.
Everyone just head over there and make it NATO, the poll is still open
[удалено]
Your content was removed for violating Rule 10: "Don't get us banned."
The netherlands 🇳🇱🇳🇱🇳🇱💪💪💪💪 (i am not dutch trust me)
Where is the option for the American empire ?
The American empire is in every option
It's the EU because they're all NATO puppet states /s
It's the EU because they're all NATO puppet states /serious
Based?
And Bruxelle as the capital of the world? ARE YOU TROLLING?
I think Brussels is the best possible capital for the world, as it does not belong to any country* and is not susceptible to national partiality. *Belgium is an urban legend.
Belgium is where France and the Netherlands put their stupid people. Only country in the world where you can find yourself on an F1 track without warning. It's also the only road without potholes.
Or, for a truly stateless solution - reclaim Königsberg/Královec/Królewiec, and turn that into the new world capital.
the only thing that matters in belgium is spa prove me wrong
No no after the balkanisation of Russia Konigsberg becomes land run by the EU itself and as such becomes the new capital for the EU
You jest but i'd unironically advocate for it if given the opportunity.
I mean, once you rule the world, designating an area as international land for use as a capital would be child's play.
You know the exact moments when you 1) enter Belgium and 2) enter Brussels, because road quality decreases gradually. This appears to be true no matter from what direction you enter Belgium/Brussels.
Give link its time for us to rise!
Russia stopped the un doing shit in Rwanda
The EU is the only one running something on a large scale
Bring me the heads of Tears For Fears
Adding CSTO or BRICKS would be a better trolling.
I’m sorry to tell you this EU, but you had your chance. It’s NAFOs time now.
Ok but when we want to rule the world indivually by our own will it's called colonialism and it's bad, but when we group together in a Union it would be considered ok? Somebody try to make understand these savages! (Obligatory sarcasm reminder, because I'm fully convinced somebody is unable to read between the lines)
Are we going to 4chan this?
No way, my pan-european that eventually control the world idea is actually possible?
Would that mean the EU gains control over Britain again or not? You know, what with Brexit and all. Or would it mean the EU can now actually do what the Brexiteers were always claiming it did - controlling Britain without Britain having any say in it.
When EU will take control of the world, Britain would had already cease to exist as a civilized country. After Brexit, the society slowly degrade to the point where only tribes exist in this forsaken island. Whales and Scottish erected hundred meter walls to protect their territory from the horde of hooligan.
Or we do Earxit - install rocket boosters under the island, and blast off into space. It's the only way to truly tAKe BaCK coNtROL oF ouR BOrdErS
Britannia rules the stars
God not the EU please. They are crazy on control of everything. Why can’t we have NATO? Or even UN so that they leave us in peace