Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The Way Ahead

Expand Messages
  • Peter Wakefield Sault
    ... rather ... It s too late to rename the group though. We will have to make do. If anyone think the existing organization can be reformed I d love to hear
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 3, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In uno_reform@yahoogroups.com, Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@...>
      wrote:
      >
      >
      > On 18-Dec-06, at 10:15 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
      >
      > > It shows I'm not alone in thinking the UNO must be replaced
      rather
      > > than reformed.
      > > P.
      >
      > Definitely not alone.

      It's too late to rename the group though. We will have to make do. If
      anyone think the existing organization can be reformed I'd love to
      hear how anyone thinks they would be able to circumvent the veto
      power of the USA.

      >
      >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: Ardeshir Mehta
      > > To: Peter Wakefield Sault
      > > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 1:02 AM
      > > Subject: Re: The Way Ahead
      > >
      > > Thanks, I'll join it!
      > >
      > > Peter Kirsch's idea is intriguing.
      > >
      > >
      > > On 15-Dec-06, at 8:01 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
      > >
      > >> I set up a Yahoo discussion group and sent you an invitation.
      It
      > >> has the beginnings of a database. I will add more bit by bit.
      > >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uno_reform/
      > >>
      > >> Andrew Winkler joined so he could be kept posted with any new
      > >> messages.
      > >>
      > >> Peter Kirsch privately claims to have invented the 'World
      > >> Parliament' as a replacement for the UNO, with its HQ in Geneva -

      > >> or South Africa, where Peter lives. It too has no veto.
      > >>
      > >> That's it.
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> ----- Original Message -----
      > >> From: Ardeshir Mehta
      > >> To: Peter Wakefield Sault
      > >> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 11:23 PM
      > >> Subject: Re: The Way Ahead
      > >>
      > >> Any progress on this, Peter?
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> On 10-Dec-06, at 5:44 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
      > >>
      > >>> Thank you, Ardeshir. I will put a rough draft together over
      the
      > >>> next few days then circulate it to the list above. This should
      > >>> also give all the other people on the list plenty of time to
      > >>> decide whether they are interested in participating and to add
      > >>> preliminary comments if they wish to do so.
      > >>>
      > >>> Alternatively, perhaps I should initiate a blog for the
      purpose
      > >>> of such discussion and post the draft there. That way anyone
      who
      > >>> is genuinely interested can actively express their interest,
      if
      > >>> any, by registering and joining in. I would, however, restrict
      > >>> membership to those I have listed and to those who might be
      > >>> recommended to me. I am quite prepared to proceed
      democratically
      > >>> in that and all other respects barring the fundamental raison
      > >>> d'etre.
      > >>>
      > >>> In fact I think I will set one (or more) up now and will
      > >>> circulate the URL(s) when I have done that. I will try several
      > >>> alternatives to find the most flexible. It might, perhaps, be
      a
      > >>> private Yahoo! discussion group as this also provides
      additional
      > >>> capabilities such as the storage of files and images, polls
      and
      > >>> so forth. Once again, if anyone wishes to make a suggestion I
      > >>> would be pleased to take it on board.
      > >>>
      > >>> I need also to accumulate a list of names and addresses of all
      > >>> heads of state. I would hope to be able to send out the
      proposed
      > >>> letter within the next few months. I am not a wealthy man by
      any
      > >>> manner of means but, however, I believe I will be able to
      cover
      > >>> the cost of stationery and postage. All the letters would be
      sent
      > >>> via UK Royal Mail and this could cost, in total, up to UK£1000.
      I
      > >>> will investigate and give more accurate figures when I have
      them.
      > >>> I will not reject any offer of assistance with these costs but
      > >>> would not be proceeding at all if I did not think that, in the
      > >>> final analysis, I could go it alone if I had to.
      > >>>
      > >>> P.
      > >>>
      > >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ardeshir Mehta"
      > >>> Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 10:13 PM
      > >>> Subject: Re: The Way Ahead
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>> Excellent points, Peter. Let's do just one thing at a time.
      Baby
      > >>> steps! I am totally in favour. Let's start drafting the
      petition.
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>> +++++
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>> On 10-Dec-06, at 5:04 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
      > >>>
      > >>>> Thankyou for your comments, Ardeshir.
      > >>>>
      > >>>> All I am proposing is a means to bypass the veto power of
      what
      > >>>> I perceive as the gangster states. The veto and the Security
      > >>>> Council are what kill any chance of the UNO ever being
      anything
      > >>>> more than a fraud perpetrated upon the people of the world.
      > >>>>
      > >>>> How could the UNO ever pass a resolution condemning the
      US/UK
      > >>>> invasion of Iraq while the US and UK have veto power?
      > >>>>
      > >>>> How could the UNO ever commit troops to protect Iraqis and
      > >>>> Afghanis from US/UK troops and 'contractors' while the US
      and
      > >>>> UK have veto power?
      > >>>>
      > >>>> How will the UNO ever help the Palestinians while the US and
      UK
      > >>>> have veto power?
      > >>>>
      > >>>> If, in a reformed organization, the member states vote to
      > >>>> overthrow a dictatorship in a member state then so be it. It
      is
      > >>>> not my place to suggest that that is what they should do and
      it
      > >>>> is beyond the scope of what I am proposing.
      > >>>>
      > >>>> I personally do not agree that voting rights should be
      > >>>> proportional to population, not least because nations should
      be
      > >>>> encouraged to reduce rather than expand their populations.
      > >>>> Moreover, that would be to hand control to countries whose
      > >>>> human rights records are appalling and would pretty much
      > >>>> guarantee that small countries could never be persuaded to
      join
      > >>>> in. However, as I said, I am not seeking to shape policy -
      only
      > >>>> to ensure a means whereby the greediest, most rapacious
      nations
      > >>>> cannot block the expressed will of the majority.
      > >>>>
      > >>>> To reiterate, all that I am proposing is that everyone leaves
      > >>>> the UNO and moves into another building, somewhere else,
      where
      > >>>> they can then proceed to put the world to rights (one hopes)
      > >>>> without being stymied by vested interests. The new
      organization
      > >>>> need only recreate the UNO - minus the vetoes and the
      Security
      > >>>> Council. Let us be clear, the US voice at the UNO does not
      > >>>> speak for the US people but for US corporations and Israel.
      The
      > >>>> reformed organization would, after all, have the power to
      > >>>> change its own constitution once the overriding power of the
      > >>>> gangsters was trimmed down to size. The new organization
      could
      > >>>> simply 'adopt' all of the existing NGOs for the purpose of
      > >>>> smooth continuity. If there is one thing I have learned
      during
      > >>>> 30 years of computer systems development, that is crucial to
      > >>>> success, it is to do ONE THING AT A TIME and make
      sure
      > >>>> that works properly before proceeding to the next step.
      > >>>> Anything else is a recipe for chaos.
      > >>>>
      > >>>> Obviously it is no good extending a veto power to everyone as
      > >>>> then NOTHING would ever get done. The only way I can see is
      to
      > >>>> eliminate vetoes altogether.
      > >>>>
      > >>>> P.
      > >>>>
      > >>>> ----- Original Message -----
      > >>>> From: Ardeshir Mehta
      > >>>> Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 9:25 PM
      > >>>> Subject: Re: The Way Ahead
      > >>>>
      > >>>>> Good idea! Let's draft a petition. (I've been meaning do
      write
      > >>>>> this for a long time already, and indeed privately have
      > >>>>> already said things along these lines to people I have met
      > >>>>> personally.)
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>> However, I have to admit that the "alternative organisation"
      > >>>>> is not going to necessarily be *much* better than the UN as
      it
      > >>>>> exists now, since it is only the so-called "leaders" of the
      > >>>>> various nation-states who would have any say in this
      > >>>>> "alternative organisation" - not the *people* of these
      nation-
      > >>>>> states.
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>> Perhaps each member-state should be allowed only a
      *weighted*
      > >>>>> vote in the new organisation, the "weight" of the vote
      > >>>>> dependent on its population ... ?
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>> Cheers.
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>> +++++
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>> On 10-Dec-06, at 12:57 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>>> Lady & Gentlemen
      > >>>>>>
      > >>>>>> May I ask your assistance with the composition of a formal
      > >>>>>> letter to be sent to the leaders of all nations?
      > >>>>>>
      > >>>>>> The essence of the letter to be the suggestion that the
      > >>>>>> United Nations Organization (UNO) should be disbanded
      > >>>>>> externally by the mass resignation of all member states
      who
      > >>>>>> should then immediately reform in an alternative
      organization
      > >>>>>> in which no member state has a veto power and in which
      there
      > >>>>>> is no equivalent of the so- called 'Security Council'
      (except
      > >>>>>> and unless proposed, authorized and elected as such by the
      > >>>>>> member states). It should be quite clear to everyone that
      the
      > >>>>>> UNO is an abject failure largely because of the veto
      powers
      > >>>>>> of certain member states and secondarily because of the
      > >>>>>> undemocratic nature of the membership of the Security
      > >>>>>> Council, if not its actual existence.
      > >>>>>>
      > >>>>>> It is clear that such a structural change could never be
      > >>>>>> effected internally as it would never be agreed to by those
      > >>>>>> with a vested interest in maintaining their own veto
      powers.
      > >>>>>> They would simply block any attempt to modify the
      > >>>>>> constitution of the UNO, using the very
      veto
      > >>>>>> which I propose to abolish in the manner above.
      > >>>>>>
      > >>>>>> I am not proposing policies or resolutions, which should
      of
      > >>>>>> course be selected and decided upon by plenary sessions of
      > >>>>>> the member states. Nor am I proposing a name for the
      > >>>>>> reformed organization at this stage.
      > >>>>>>
      > >>>>>> If any of the addressees of this email do not wish to
      assist
      > >>>>>> or to participate in such a project I would be grateful if
      > >>>>>> they would be kind enough to let me know. If I must I will
      > >>>>>> proceed alone. I would ask all of you to set aside any
      other
      > >>>>>> differences you may have for the purpose of taking this
      > >>>>>> project forward. Furthermore, if any addressee knows of
      any
      > >>>>>> other parties who they feel should be included in such a
      > >>>>>> project I would be most pleased to present their names for
      > >>>>>> consideration. At this stage, which is only exploratory, I
      > >>>>>> would be pleased to accept a decision arrived at
      > >>>>>> democratically by all interested parties. The only matter
      > >>>>>> which cannot be subject to change is the central proposal
      to
      > >>>>>> replace the UNO.
      > >>>>>>
      > >>>>>> Do you think I should firstly try to find co-signatories
      and/
      > >>>>>> or set up an organization devoted to this aim?
      > >>>>>>
      > >>>>>> Kindest Regards
      > >>>>>> Peter Wakefield Sault
      > >>>>>> http://www.odeion.org
      > >>>>>>
      > >>>>>> 12 Moorhen Close
      > >>>>>> Brownhills
      > >>>>>> Walsall
      > >>>>>> West Midlands WS8 6EE
      > >>>>>> England
      > >>>>>>
      > >>>>>> [UK] 01543 378108 Home
      > >>>>>> [UK] 07940 875772 Mobile
      > >>>>>>
      > >>>>>> sault@...
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>
      > >> P.S.: I invite all those who read this message to join "News-
      > >> Sense"! To subscribe to the group, send an email to:
      > >>
      > >> <news_sense-subscribe@yahoogroups.com>
      > >>
      > >> Or to visit it on the web, go to:
      > >>
      > >> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/news_sense/>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >
      > > P.S.: I invite all those who read this message to join "News-
      > > Sense"! To subscribe to the group, send an email to:
      > >
      > > <news_sense-subscribe@yahoogroups.com>
      > >
      > > Or to visit it on the web, go to:
      > >
      > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/news_sense/>
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      > P.S.: I invite all those who read this message to join "News-
      Sense"!
      > To subscribe to the group, send an email to:
      >
      > <news_sense-subscribe@yahoogroups.com>
      >
      > Or to visit it on the web, go to:
      >
      > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/news_sense/>
      >
    • alan b'stard M P
      getting that present lot off the security council will be a start! B ... From: Peter Wakefield Sault To: uno_reform@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 04,
      Message 2 of 5 , Jan 4, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        getting that present lot off the security council will be a start!
         
        B
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 6:15 AM
        Subject: [uno_reform] Re: The Way Ahead

        --- In uno_reform@yahoogro ups.com, Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@.. .>
        wrote:
        >
        >
        > On 18-Dec-06, at 10:15 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
        >
        > > It shows I'm not alone in thinking the UNO must be replaced
        rather
        > > than reformed.
        > > P.
        >
        > Definitely not alone.

        It's too late to rename the group though. We will have to make do. If
        anyone think the existing organization can be reformed I'd love to
        hear how anyone thinks they would be able to circumvent the veto
        power of the USA.

        >
        >
        > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > From: Ardeshir Mehta
        > > To: Peter Wakefield Sault
        > > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 1:02 AM
        > > Subject: Re: The Way Ahead
        > >
        > > Thanks, I'll join it!
        > >
        > > Peter Kirsch's idea is intriguing.
        > >
        > >
        > > On 15-Dec-06, at 8:01 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
        > >
        > >> I set up a Yahoo discussion group and sent you an invitation.
        It
        > >> has the beginnings of a database. I will add more bit by bit.
        > >> http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/uno_ reform/
        > >>
        > >> Andrew Winkler joined so he could be kept posted with any new
        > >> messages.
        > >>
        > >> Peter Kirsch privately claims to have invented the 'World
        > >> Parliament' as a replacement for the UNO, with its HQ in Geneva -

        > >> or South Africa, where Peter lives. It too has no veto.
        > >>
        > >> That's it.
        > >>
        > >>
        > >> ----- Original Message -----
        > >> From: Ardeshir Mehta
        > >> To: Peter Wakefield Sault
        > >> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 11:23 PM
        > >> Subject: Re: The Way Ahead
        > >>
        > >> Any progress on this, Peter?
        > >>
        > >>
        > >> On 10-Dec-06, at 5:44 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
        > >>
        > >>> Thank you, Ardeshir. I will put a rough draft together over
        the
        > >>> next few days then circulate it to the list above. This should
        > >>> also give all the other people on the list plenty of time to
        > >>> decide whether they are interested in participating and to add
        > >>> preliminary comments if they wish to do so.
        > >>>
        > >>> Alternatively, perhaps I should initiate a blog for the
        purpose
        > >>> of such discussion and post the draft there. That way anyone
        who
        > >>> is genuinely interested can actively express their interest,
        if
        > >>> any, by registering and joining in. I would, however, restrict
        > >>> membership to those I have listed and to those who might be
        > >>> recommended to me. I am quite prepared to proceed
        democratically
        > >>> in that and all other respects barring the fundamental raison
        > >>> d'etre.
        > >>>
        > >>> In fact I think I will set one (or more) up now and will
        > >>> circulate the URL(s) when I have done that. I will try several
        > >>> alternatives to find the most flexible. It might, perhaps, be
        a
        > >>> private Yahoo! discussion group as this also provides
        additional
        > >>> capabilities such as the storage of files and images, polls
        and
        > >>> so forth. Once again, if anyone wishes to make a suggestion I
        > >>> would be pleased to take it on board.
        > >>>
        > >>> I need also to accumulate a list of names and addresses of all
        > >>> heads of state. I would hope to be able to send out the
        proposed
        > >>> letter within the next few months. I am not a wealthy man by
        any
        > >>> manner of means but, however, I believe I will be able to
        cover
        > >>> the cost of stationery and postage. All the letters would be
        sent
        > >>> via UK Royal Mail and this could cost, in total, up to UK£1000.
        I
        > >>> will investigate and give more accurate figures when I have
        them.
        > >>> I will not reject any offer of assistance with these costs but
        > >>> would not be proceeding at all if I did not think that, in the
        > >>> final analysis, I could go it alone if I had to.
        > >>>
        > >>> P.
        > >>>
        > >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ardeshir Mehta"
        > >>> Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 10:13 PM
        > >>> Subject: Re: The Way Ahead
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>> Excellent points, Peter. Let's do just one thing at a time.
        Baby
        > >>> steps! I am totally in favour. Let's start drafting the
        petition.
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>> +++++
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>> On 10-Dec-06, at 5:04 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
        > >>>
        > >>>> Thankyou for your comments, Ardeshir.
        > >>>>
        > >>>> All I am proposing is a means to bypass the veto power of
        what
        > >>>> I perceive as the gangster states. The veto and the Security
        > >>>> Council are what kill any chance of the UNO ever being
        anything
        > >>>> more than a fraud perpetrated upon the people of the world.
        > >>>>
        > >>>> How could the UNO ever pass a resolution condemning the
        US/UK
        > >>>> invasion of Iraq while the US and UK have veto power?
        > >>>>
        > >>>> How could the UNO ever commit troops to protect Iraqis and
        > >>>> Afghanis from US/UK troops and 'contractors' while the US
        and
        > >>>> UK have veto power?
        > >>>>
        > >>>> How will the UNO ever help the Palestinians while the US and
        UK
        > >>>> have veto power?
        > >>>>
        > >>>> If, in a reformed organization, the member states vote to
        > >>>> overthrow a dictatorship in a member state then so be it. It
        is
        > >>>> not my place to suggest that that is what they should do and
        it
        > >>>> is beyond the scope of what I am proposing.
        > >>>>
        > >>>> I personally do not agree that voting rights should be
        > >>>> proportional to population, not least because nations should
        be
        > >>>> encouraged to reduce rather than expand their populations.
        > >>>> Moreover, that would be to hand control to countries whose
        > >>>> human rights records are appalling and would pretty much
        > >>>> guarantee that small countries could never be persuaded to
        join
        > >>>> in. However, as I said, I am not seeking to shape policy -
        only
        > >>>> to ensure a means whereby the greediest, most rapacious
        nations
        > >>>> cannot block the expressed will of the majority.
        > >>>>
        > >>>> To reiterate, all that I am proposing is that everyone leaves
        > >>>> the UNO and moves into another building, somewhere else,
        where
        > >>>> they can then proceed to put the world to rights (one hopes)
        > >>>> without being stymied by vested interests. The new
        organization
        > >>>> need only recreate the UNO - minus the vetoes and the
        Security
        > >>>> Council. Let us be clear, the US voice at the UNO does not
        > >>>> speak for the US people but for US corporations and Israel.
        The
        > >>>> reformed organization would, after all, have the power to
        > >>>> change its own constitution once the overriding power of the
        > >>>> gangsters was trimmed down to size. The new organization
        could
        > >>>> simply 'adopt' all of the existing NGOs for the purpose of
        > >>>> smooth continuity. If there is one thing I have learned
        during
        > >>>> 30 years of computer systems development, that is crucial to
        > >>>> success, it is to do ONE THING AT A TIME and make
        sure
        > >>>> that works properly before proceeding to the next step.
        > >>>> Anything else is a recipe for chaos.
        > >>>>
        > >>>> Obviously it is no good extending a veto power to everyone as
        > >>>> then NOTHING would ever get done. The only way I can see is
        to
        > >>>> eliminate vetoes altogether.
        > >>>>
        > >>>> P.
        > >>>>
        > >>>> ----- Original Message -----
        > >>>> From: Ardeshir Mehta
        > >>>> Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 9:25 PM
        > >>>> Subject: Re: The Way Ahead
        > >>>>
        > >>>>> Good idea! Let's draft a petition. (I've been meaning do
        write
        > >>>>> this for a long time already, and indeed privately have
        > >>>>> already said things along these lines to people I have met
        > >>>>> personally.)
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>> However, I have to admit that the "alternative organisation"
        > >>>>> is not going to necessarily be *much* better than the UN as
        it
        > >>>>> exists now, since it is only the so-called "leaders" of the
        > >>>>> various nation-states who would have any say in this
        > >>>>> "alternative organisation" - not the *people* of these
        nation-
        > >>>>> states.
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>> Perhaps each member-state should be allowed only a
        *weighted*
        > >>>>> vote in the new organisation, the "weight" of the vote
        > >>>>> dependent on its population ... ?
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>> Cheers.
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>> +++++
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>> On 10-Dec-06, at 12:57 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
        > >>>>>
        > >>>>>> Lady & Gentlemen
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>> May I ask your assistance with the composition of a formal
        > >>>>>> letter to be sent to the leaders of all nations?
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>> The essence of the letter to be the suggestion that the
        > >>>>>> United Nations Organization (UNO) should be disbanded
        > >>>>>> externally by the mass resignation of all member states
        who
        > >>>>>> should then immediately reform in an alternative
        organization
        > >>>>>> in which no member state has a veto power and in which
        there
        > >>>>>> is no equivalent of the so- called 'Security Council'
        (except
        > >>>>>> and unless proposed, authorized and elected as such by the
        > >>>>>> member states). It should be quite clear to everyone that
        the
        > >>>>>> UNO is an abject failure largely because of the veto
        powers
        > >>>>>> of certain member states and secondarily because of the
        > >>>>>> undemocratic nature of the membership of the Security
        > >>>>>> Council, if not its actual existence.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>> It is clear that such a structural change could never be
        > >>>>>> effected internally as it would never be agreed to by those
        > >>>>>> with a vested interest in maintaining their own veto
        powers.
        > >>>>>> They would simply block any attempt to modify the
        > >>>>>> constitution of the UNO, using the very
        veto
        > >>>>>> which I propose to abolish in the manner above.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>> I am not proposing policies or resolutions, which should
        of
        > >>>>>> course be selected and decided upon by plenary sessions of
        > >>>>>> the member states. Nor am I proposing a name for the
        > >>>>>> reformed organization at this stage.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>> If any of the addressees of this email do not wish to
        assist
        > >>>>>> or to participate in such a project I would be grateful if
        > >>>>>> they would be kind enough to let me know. If I must I will
        > >>>>>> proceed alone. I would ask all of you to set aside any
        other
        > >>>>>> differences you may have for the purpose of taking this
        > >>>>>> project forward. Furthermore, if any addressee knows of
        any
        > >>>>>> other parties who they feel should be included in such a
        > >>>>>> project I would be most pleased to present their names for
        > >>>>>> consideration. At this stage, which is only exploratory, I
        > >>>>>> would be pleased to accept a decision arrived at
        > >>>>>> democratically by all interested parties. The only matter
        > >>>>>> which cannot be subject to change is the central proposal
        to
        > >>>>>> replace the UNO.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>> Do you think I should firstly try to find co-signatories
        and/
        > >>>>>> or set up an organization devoted to this aim?
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>> Kindest Regards
        > >>>>>> Peter Wakefield Sault
        > >>>>>> http://www.odeion. org
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>> 12 Moorhen Close
        > >>>>>> Brownhills
        > >>>>>> Walsall
        > >>>>>> West Midlands WS8 6EE
        > >>>>>> England
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>> [UK] 01543 378108 Home
        > >>>>>> [UK] 07940 875772 Mobile
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>> sault@...
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>
        > >> P.S.: I invite all those who read this message to join "News-
        > >> Sense"! To subscribe to the group, send an email to:
        > >>
        > >> <news_sense-subscrib e@yahoogroups. com>
        > >>
        > >> Or to visit it on the web, go to:
        > >>
        > >> <http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/news_ sense/>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >
        > > P.S.: I invite all those who read this message to join "News-
        > > Sense"! To subscribe to the group, send an email to:
        > >
        > > <news_sense-subscrib e@yahoogroups. com>
        > >
        > > Or to visit it on the web, go to:
        > >
        > > <http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/news_ sense/>
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        > P.S.: I invite all those who read this message to join "News-
        Sense"!
        > To subscribe to the group, send an email to:
        >
        > <news_sense-subscrib e@yahoogroups. com>
        >
        > Or to visit it on the web, go to:
        >
        > <http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/news_ sense/>
        >

      • Ardeshir Mehta
        We must get cracking on this, Peter! ... P.S.: I invite all those who read this message to join News-Sense ! To subscribe to the group, send an email to:
        Message 3 of 5 , Jan 4, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          We must get cracking on this, Peter!


          On 3-Jan-07, at 2:15 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:

          --- In uno_reform@yahoogroups.com, Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@...>
          wrote:
          >
          >
          > On 18-Dec-06, at 10:15 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
          >
          > > It shows I'm not alone in thinking the UNO must be replaced
          rather
          > > than reformed.
          > > P.
          >
          > Definitely not alone.

          It's too late to rename the group though. We will have to make do. If
          anyone think the existing organization can be reformed I'd love to
          hear how anyone thinks they would be able to circumvent the veto
          power of the USA.

          >
          >
          > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > From: Ardeshir Mehta
          > > To: Peter Wakefield Sault
          > > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 1:02 AM
          > > Subject: Re: The Way Ahead
          > >
          > > Thanks, I'll join it!
          > >
          > > Peter Kirsch's idea is intriguing.
          > >
          > >
          > > On 15-Dec-06, at 8:01 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
          > >
          > >> I set up a Yahoo discussion group and sent you an invitation.
          It
          > >> has the beginnings of a database. I will add more bit by bit.
          > >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uno_reform/
          > >>
          > >> Andrew Winkler joined so he could be kept posted with any new
          > >> messages.
          > >>
          > >> Peter Kirsch privately claims to have invented the 'World
          > >> Parliament' as a replacement for the UNO, with its HQ in Geneva -

          > >> or South Africa, where Peter lives. It too has no veto.
          > >>
          > >> That's it.
          > >>
          > >>
          > >> ----- Original Message -----
          > >> From: Ardeshir Mehta
          > >> To: Peter Wakefield Sault
          > >> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 11:23 PM
          > >> Subject: Re: The Way Ahead
          > >>
          > >> Any progress on this, Peter?
          > >>
          > >>
          > >> On 10-Dec-06, at 5:44 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
          > >>
          > >>> Thank you, Ardeshir. I will put a rough draft together over
          the
          > >>> next few days then circulate it to the list above. This should
          > >>> also give all the other people on the list plenty of time to
          > >>> decide whether they are interested in participating and to add
          > >>> preliminary comments if they wish to do so.
          > >>>
          > >>> Alternatively, perhaps I should initiate a blog for the
          purpose
          > >>> of such discussion and post the draft there. That way anyone
          who
          > >>> is genuinely interested can actively express their interest,
          if
          > >>> any, by registering and joining in. I would, however, restrict
          > >>> membership to those I have listed and to those who might be
          > >>> recommended to me. I am quite prepared to proceed
          democratically
          > >>> in that and all other respects barring the fundamental raison
          > >>> d'etre.
          > >>>
          > >>> In fact I think I will set one (or more) up now and will
          > >>> circulate the URL(s) when I have done that. I will try several
          > >>> alternatives to find the most flexible. It might, perhaps, be
          a
          > >>> private Yahoo! discussion group as this also provides
          additional
          > >>> capabilities such as the storage of files and images, polls
          and
          > >>> so forth. Once again, if anyone wishes to make a suggestion I
          > >>> would be pleased to take it on board.
          > >>>
          > >>> I need also to accumulate a list of names and addresses of all
          > >>> heads of state. I would hope to be able to send out the
          proposed
          > >>> letter within the next few months. I am not a wealthy man by
          any
          > >>> manner of means but, however, I believe I will be able to
          cover
          > >>> the cost of stationery and postage. All the letters would be
          sent
          > >>> via UK Royal Mail and this could cost, in total, up to UK£1000.
          I
          > >>> will investigate and give more accurate figures when I have
          them.
          > >>> I will not reject any offer of assistance with these costs but
          > >>> would not be proceeding at all if I did not think that, in the
          > >>> final analysis, I could go it alone if I had to.
          > >>>
          > >>> P.
          > >>>
          > >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ardeshir Mehta"
          > >>> Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 10:13 PM
          > >>> Subject: Re: The Way Ahead
          > >>>
          > >>>
          > >>>
          > >>>
          > >>> Excellent points, Peter. Let's do just one thing at a time.
          Baby
          > >>> steps! I am totally in favour. Let's start drafting the
          petition.
          > >>>
          > >>>
          > >>> +++++
          > >>>
          > >>>
          > >>> On 10-Dec-06, at 5:04 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
          > >>>
          > >>>> Thankyou for your comments, Ardeshir.
          > >>>>
          > >>>> All I am proposing is a means to bypass the veto power of
          what
          > >>>> I perceive as the gangster states. The veto and the Security
          > >>>> Council are what kill any chance of the UNO ever being
          anything
          > >>>> more than a fraud perpetrated upon the people of the world.
          > >>>>
          > >>>> How could the UNO ever pass a resolution condemning the
          US/UK
          > >>>> invasion of Iraq while the US and UK have veto power?
          > >>>>
          > >>>> How could the UNO ever commit troops to protect Iraqis and
          > >>>> Afghanis from US/UK troops and 'contractors' while the US
          and
          > >>>> UK have veto power?
          > >>>>
          > >>>> How will the UNO ever help the Palestinians while the US and
          UK
          > >>>> have veto power?
          > >>>>
          > >>>> If, in a reformed organization, the member states vote to
          > >>>> overthrow a dictatorship in a member state then so be it. It
          is
          > >>>> not my place to suggest that that is what they should do and
          it
          > >>>> is beyond the scope of what I am proposing.
          > >>>>
          > >>>> I personally do not agree that voting rights should be
          > >>>> proportional to population, not least because nations should
          be
          > >>>> encouraged to reduce rather than expand their populations.
          > >>>> Moreover, that would be to hand control to countries whose
          > >>>> human rights records are appalling and would pretty much
          > >>>> guarantee that small countries could never be persuaded to
          join
          > >>>> in. However, as I said, I am not seeking to shape policy -
          only
          > >>>> to ensure a means whereby the greediest, most rapacious
          nations
          > >>>> cannot block the expressed will of the majority.
          > >>>>
          > >>>> To reiterate, all that I am proposing is that everyone leaves
          > >>>> the UNO and moves into another building, somewhere else,
          where
          > >>>> they can then proceed to put the world to rights (one hopes)
          > >>>> without being stymied by vested interests. The new
          organization
          > >>>> need only recreate the UNO - minus the vetoes and the
          Security
          > >>>> Council. Let us be clear, the US voice at the UNO does not
          > >>>> speak for the US people but for US corporations and Israel.
          The
          > >>>> reformed organization would, after all, have the power to
          > >>>> change its own constitution once the overriding power of the
          > >>>> gangsters was trimmed down to size. The new organization
          could
          > >>>> simply 'adopt' all of the existing NGOs for the purpose of
          > >>>> smooth continuity. If there is one thing I have learned
          during
          > >>>> 30 years of computer systems development, that is crucial to
          > >>>> success, it is to do ONE THING AT A TIME and make
          sure
          > >>>> that works properly before proceeding to the next step.
          > >>>> Anything else is a recipe for chaos.
          > >>>>
          > >>>> Obviously it is no good extending a veto power to everyone as
          > >>>> then NOTHING would ever get done. The only way I can see is
          to
          > >>>> eliminate vetoes altogether.
          > >>>>
          > >>>> P.
          > >>>>
          > >>>> ----- Original Message -----
          > >>>> From: Ardeshir Mehta
          > >>>> Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 9:25 PM
          > >>>> Subject: Re: The Way Ahead
          > >>>>
          > >>>>> Good idea! Let's draft a petition. (I've been meaning do
          write
          > >>>>> this for a long time already, and indeed privately have
          > >>>>> already said things along these lines to people I have met
          > >>>>> personally.)
          > >>>>>
          > >>>>> However, I have to admit that the "alternative organisation"
          > >>>>> is not going to necessarily be *much* better than the UN as
          it
          > >>>>> exists now, since it is only the so-called "leaders" of the
          > >>>>> various nation-states who would have any say in this
          > >>>>> "alternative organisation" - not the *people* of these
          nation-
          > >>>>> states.
          > >>>>>
          > >>>>> Perhaps each member-state should be allowed only a
          *weighted*
          > >>>>> vote in the new organisation, the "weight" of the vote
          > >>>>> dependent on its population ... ?
          > >>>>>
          > >>>>>
          > >>>>> Cheers.
          > >>>>>
          > >>>>>
          > >>>>> +++++
          > >>>>>
          > >>>>>
          > >>>>> On 10-Dec-06, at 12:57 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
          > >>>>>
          > >>>>>> Lady & Gentlemen
          > >>>>>>
          > >>>>>> May I ask your assistance with the composition of a formal
          > >>>>>> letter to be sent to the leaders of all nations?
          > >>>>>>
          > >>>>>> The essence of the letter to be the suggestion that the
          > >>>>>> United Nations Organization (UNO) should be disbanded
          > >>>>>> externally by the mass resignation of all member states
          who
          > >>>>>> should then immediately reform in an alternative
          organization
          > >>>>>> in which no member state has a veto power and in which
          there
          > >>>>>> is no equivalent of the so- called 'Security Council'
          (except
          > >>>>>> and unless proposed, authorized and elected as such by the
          > >>>>>> member states). It should be quite clear to everyone that
          the
          > >>>>>> UNO is an abject failure largely because of the veto
          powers
          > >>>>>> of certain member states and secondarily because of the
          > >>>>>> undemocratic nature of the membership of the Security
          > >>>>>> Council, if not its actual existence.
          > >>>>>>
          > >>>>>> It is clear that such a structural change could never be
          > >>>>>> effected internally as it would never be agreed to by those
          > >>>>>> with a vested interest in maintaining their own veto
          powers.
          > >>>>>> They would simply block any attempt to modify the
          > >>>>>> constitution of the UNO, using the very
          veto
          > >>>>>> which I propose to abolish in the manner above.
          > >>>>>>
          > >>>>>> I am not proposing policies or resolutions, which should
          of
          > >>>>>> course be selected and decided upon by plenary sessions of
          > >>>>>> the member states. Nor am I proposing a name for the
          > >>>>>> reformed organization at this stage.
          > >>>>>>
          > >>>>>> If any of the addressees of this email do not wish to
          assist
          > >>>>>> or to participate in such a project I would be grateful if
          > >>>>>> they would be kind enough to let me know. If I must I will
          > >>>>>> proceed alone. I would ask all of you to set aside any
          other
          > >>>>>> differences you may have for the purpose of taking this
          > >>>>>> project forward. Furthermore, if any addressee knows of
          any
          > >>>>>> other parties who they feel should be included in such a

        • Peter Wakefield Sault
          ... I m slowly adding to the N&A database. ... do. If ... Geneva - ... should ... add ... restrict ... raison ... several ... be ... I ... all ... UK£1000.
          Message 4 of 5 , Jan 4, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In uno_reform@yahoogroups.com, Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > We must get cracking on this, Peter!

            I'm slowly adding to the N&A database.

            >
            >
            > On 3-Jan-07, at 2:15 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
            >
            > > --- In uno_reform@yahoogroups.com, Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@>
            > > wrote:
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > On 18-Dec-06, at 10:15 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
            > > >
            > > > > It shows I'm not alone in thinking the UNO must be replaced
            > > rather
            > > > > than reformed.
            > > > > P.
            > > >
            > > > Definitely not alone.
            > >
            > > It's too late to rename the group though. We will have to make
            do. If
            > > anyone think the existing organization can be reformed I'd love to
            > > hear how anyone thinks they would be able to circumvent the veto
            > > power of the USA.
            > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > > ----- Original Message -----
            > > > > From: Ardeshir Mehta
            > > > > To: Peter Wakefield Sault
            > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 1:02 AM
            > > > > Subject: Re: The Way Ahead
            > > > >
            > > > > Thanks, I'll join it!
            > > > >
            > > > > Peter Kirsch's idea is intriguing.
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > On 15-Dec-06, at 8:01 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
            > > > >
            > > > >> I set up a Yahoo discussion group and sent you an invitation.
            > > It
            > > > >> has the beginnings of a database. I will add more bit by bit.
            > > > >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uno_reform/
            > > > >>
            > > > >> Andrew Winkler joined so he could be kept posted with any new
            > > > >> messages.
            > > > >>
            > > > >> Peter Kirsch privately claims to have invented the 'World
            > > > >> Parliament' as a replacement for the UNO, with its HQ in
            Geneva -
            > >
            > > > >> or South Africa, where Peter lives. It too has no veto.
            > > > >>
            > > > >> That's it.
            > > > >>
            > > > >>
            > > > >> ----- Original Message -----
            > > > >> From: Ardeshir Mehta
            > > > >> To: Peter Wakefield Sault
            > > > >> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 11:23 PM
            > > > >> Subject: Re: The Way Ahead
            > > > >>
            > > > >> Any progress on this, Peter?
            > > > >>
            > > > >>
            > > > >> On 10-Dec-06, at 5:44 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
            > > > >>
            > > > >>> Thank you, Ardeshir. I will put a rough draft together over
            > > the
            > > > >>> next few days then circulate it to the list above. This
            should
            > > > >>> also give all the other people on the list plenty of time to
            > > > >>> decide whether they are interested in participating and to
            add
            > > > >>> preliminary comments if they wish to do so.
            > > > >>>
            > > > >>> Alternatively, perhaps I should initiate a blog for the
            > > purpose
            > > > >>> of such discussion and post the draft there. That way anyone
            > > who
            > > > >>> is genuinely interested can actively express their interest,
            > > if
            > > > >>> any, by registering and joining in. I would, however,
            restrict
            > > > >>> membership to those I have listed and to those who might be
            > > > >>> recommended to me. I am quite prepared to proceed
            > > democratically
            > > > >>> in that and all other respects barring the fundamental
            raison
            > > > >>> d'etre.
            > > > >>>
            > > > >>> In fact I think I will set one (or more) up now and will
            > > > >>> circulate the URL(s) when I have done that. I will try
            several
            > > > >>> alternatives to find the most flexible. It might, perhaps,
            be
            > > a
            > > > >>> private Yahoo! discussion group as this also provides
            > > additional
            > > > >>> capabilities such as the storage of files and images, polls
            > > and
            > > > >>> so forth. Once again, if anyone wishes to make a suggestion
            I
            > > > >>> would be pleased to take it on board.
            > > > >>>
            > > > >>> I need also to accumulate a list of names and addresses of
            all
            > > > >>> heads of state. I would hope to be able to send out the
            > > proposed
            > > > >>> letter within the next few months. I am not a wealthy man by
            > > any
            > > > >>> manner of means but, however, I believe I will be able to
            > > cover
            > > > >>> the cost of stationery and postage. All the letters would be
            > > sent
            > > > >>> via UK Royal Mail and this could cost, in total, up to
            UK£1000.
            > > I
            > > > >>> will investigate and give more accurate figures when I have
            > > them.
            > > > >>> I will not reject any offer of assistance with these costs
            but
            > > > >>> would not be proceeding at all if I did not think that, in
            the
            > > > >>> final analysis, I could go it alone if I had to.
            > > > >>>
            > > > >>> P.
            > > > >>>
            > > > >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ardeshir Mehta"
            > > > >>> Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 10:13 PM
            > > > >>> Subject: Re: The Way Ahead
            > > > >>>
            > > > >>>
            > > > >>>
            > > > >>>
            > > > >>> Excellent points, Peter. Let's do just one thing at a time.
            > > Baby
            > > > >>> steps! I am totally in favour. Let's start drafting the
            > > petition.
            > > > >>>
            > > > >>>
            > > > >>> +++++
            > > > >>>
            > > > >>>
            > > > >>> On 10-Dec-06, at 5:04 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
            > > > >>>
            > > > >>>> Thankyou for your comments, Ardeshir.
            > > > >>>>
            > > > >>>> All I am proposing is a means to bypass the veto power of
            > > what
            > > > >>>> I perceive as the gangster states. The veto and the
            Security
            > > > >>>> Council are what kill any chance of the UNO ever being
            > > anything
            > > > >>>> more than a fraud perpetrated upon the people of the world.
            > > > >>>>
            > > > >>>> How could the UNO ever pass a resolution condemning the
            > > US/UK
            > > > >>>> invasion of Iraq while the US and UK have veto power?
            > > > >>>>
            > > > >>>> How could the UNO ever commit troops to protect Iraqis and
            > > > >>>> Afghanis from US/UK troops and 'contractors' while the US
            > > and
            > > > >>>> UK have veto power?
            > > > >>>>
            > > > >>>> How will the UNO ever help the Palestinians while the US
            and
            > > UK
            > > > >>>> have veto power?
            > > > >>>>
            > > > >>>> If, in a reformed organization, the member states vote to
            > > > >>>> overthrow a dictatorship in a member state then so be it.
            It
            > > is
            > > > >>>> not my place to suggest that that is what they should do
            and
            > > it
            > > > >>>> is beyond the scope of what I am proposing.
            > > > >>>>
            > > > >>>> I personally do not agree that voting rights should be
            > > > >>>> proportional to population, not least because nations
            should
            > > be
            > > > >>>> encouraged to reduce rather than expand their populations.
            > > > >>>> Moreover, that would be to hand control to countries whose
            > > > >>>> human rights records are appalling and would pretty much
            > > > >>>> guarantee that small countries could never be persuaded to
            > > join
            > > > >>>> in. However, as I said, I am not seeking to shape policy -
            > > only
            > > > >>>> to ensure a means whereby the greediest, most rapacious
            > > nations
            > > > >>>> cannot block the expressed will of the majority.
            > > > >>>>
            > > > >>>> To reiterate, all that I am proposing is that everyone
            leaves
            > > > >>>> the UNO and moves into another building, somewhere else,
            > > where
            > > > >>>> they can then proceed to put the world to rights (one
            hopes)
            > > > >>>> without being stymied by vested interests. The new
            > > organization
            > > > >>>> need only recreate the UNO - minus the vetoes and the
            > > Security
            > > > >>>> Council. Let us be clear, the US voice at the UNO does not
            > > > >>>> speak for the US people but for US corporations and Israel.
            > > The
            > > > >>>> reformed organization would, after all, have the power to
            > > > >>>> change its own constitution once the overriding power of
            the
            > > > >>>> gangsters was trimmed down to size. The new organization
            > > could
            > > > >>>> simply 'adopt' all of the existing NGOs for the purpose of
            > > > >>>> smooth continuity. If there is one thing I have learned
            > > during
            > > > >>>> 30 years of computer systems development, that is crucial
            to
            > > > >>>> success, it is to do ONE THING AT A TIME and make
            > > sure
            > > > >>>> that works properly before proceeding to the next step.
            > > > >>>> Anything else is a recipe for chaos.
            > > > >>>>
            > > > >>>> Obviously it is no good extending a veto power to everyone
            as
            > > > >>>> then NOTHING would ever get done. The only way I can see is
            > > to
            > > > >>>> eliminate vetoes altogether.
            > > > >>>>
            > > > >>>> P.
            > > > >>>>
            > > > >>>> ----- Original Message -----
            > > > >>>> From: Ardeshir Mehta
            > > > >>>> Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 9:25 PM
            > > > >>>> Subject: Re: The Way Ahead
            > > > >>>>
            > > > >>>>> Good idea! Let's draft a petition. (I've been meaning do
            > > write
            > > > >>>>> this for a long time already, and indeed privately have
            > > > >>>>> already said things along these lines to people I have met
            > > > >>>>> personally.)
            > > > >>>>>
            > > > >>>>> However, I have to admit that the "alternative
            organisation"
            > > > >>>>> is not going to necessarily be *much* better than the UN
            as
            > > it
            > > > >>>>> exists now, since it is only the so-called "leaders" of
            the
            > > > >>>>> various nation-states who would have any say in this
            > > > >>>>> "alternative organisation" - not the *people* of these
            > > nation-
            > > > >>>>> states.
            > > > >>>>>
            > > > >>>>> Perhaps each member-state should be allowed only a
            > > *weighted*
            > > > >>>>> vote in the new organisation, the "weight" of the vote
            > > > >>>>> dependent on its population ... ?
            > > > >>>>>
            > > > >>>>>
            > > > >>>>> Cheers.
            > > > >>>>>
            > > > >>>>>
            > > > >>>>> +++++
            > > > >>>>>
            > > > >>>>>
            > > > >>>>> On 10-Dec-06, at 12:57 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
            > > > >>>>>
            > > > >>>>>> Lady & Gentlemen
            > > > >>>>>>
            > > > >>>>>> May I ask your assistance with the composition of a
            formal
            > > > >>>>>> letter to be sent to the leaders of all nations?
            > > > >>>>>>
            > > > >>>>>> The essence of the letter to be the suggestion that the
            > > > >>>>>> United Nations Organization (UNO) should be disbanded
            > > > >>>>>> externally by the mass resignation of all member states
            > > who
            > > > >>>>>> should then immediately reform in an alternative
            > > organization
            > > > >>>>>> in which no member state has a veto power and in which
            > > there
            > > > >>>>>> is no equivalent of the so- called 'Security Council'
            > > (except
            > > > >>>>>> and unless proposed, authorized and elected as such by
            the
            > > > >>>>>> member states). It should be quite clear to everyone that
            > > the
            > > > >>>>>> UNO is an abject failure largely because of the veto
            > > powers
            > > > >>>>>> of certain member states and secondarily because of the
            > > > >>>>>> undemocratic nature of the membership of the Security
            > > > >>>>>> Council, if not its actual existence.
            > > > >>>>>>
            > > > >>>>>> It is clear that such a structural change could never be
            > > > >>>>>> effected internally as it would never be agreed to by
            those
            > > > >>>>>> with a vested interest in maintaining their own veto
            > > powers.
            > > > >>>>>> They would simply block any attempt to modify the
            > > > >>>>>> constitution of the UNO, using the very
            > > veto
            > > > >>>>>> which I propose to abolish in the manner above.
            > > > >>>>>>
            > > > >>>>>> I am not proposing policies or resolutions, which should
            > > of
            > > > >>>>>> course be selected and decided upon by plenary sessions
            of
            > > > >>>>>> the member states. Nor am I proposing a name for the
            > > > >>>>>> reformed organization at this stage.
            > > > >>>>>>
            > > > >>>>>> If any of the addressees of this email do not wish to
            > > assist
            > > > >>>>>> or to participate in such a project I would be grateful
            if
            > > > >>>>>> they would be kind enough to let me know. If I must I
            will
            > > > >>>>>> proceed alone. I would ask all of you to set aside any
            > > other
            > > > >>>>>> differences you may have for the purpose of taking this
            > > > >>>>>> project forward. Furthermore, if any addressee knows of
            > > any
            > > > >>>>>> other parties who they feel should be included in such a
            > > > >>>>>> project I would be most pleased to present their names
            for
            > > > >>>>>> consideration. At this stage, which is only exploratory,
            I
            > > > >>>>>> would be pleased to accept a decision arrived at
            > > > >>>>>> democratically by all interested parties. The only matter
            > > > >>>>>> which cannot be subject to change is the central proposal
            > > to
            > > > >>>>>> replace the UNO.
            > > > >>>>>>
            > > > >>>>>> Do you think I should firstly try to find co-signatories
            > > and/
            > > > >>>>>> or set up an organization devoted to this aim?
            > > > >>>>>>
            > > > >>>>>> Kindest Regards
            > > > >>>>>> Peter Wakefield Sault
            > > > >>>>>> http://www.odeion.org
            > > > >>>>>>
            > > > >>>>>> 12 Moorhen Close
            > > > >>>>>> Brownhills
            > > > >>>>>> Walsall
            > > > >>>>>> West Midlands WS8 6EE
            > > > >>>>>> England
            > > > >>>>>>
            > > > >>>>>> [UK] 01543 378108 Home
            > > > >>>>>> [UK] 07940 875772 Mobile
            > > > >>>>>>
            > > > >>>>>> sault@
            > > > >>>
            > > > >>>
            > > > >>
            > > > >> P.S.: I invite all those who read this message to join "News-
            > > > >> Sense"! To subscribe to the group, send an email to:
            > > > >>
            > > > >> <news_sense-subscribe@yahoogroups.com>
            > > > >>
            > > > >> Or to visit it on the web, go to:
            > > > >>
            > > > >> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/news_sense/>
            > > > >>
            > > > >>
            > > > >>
            > > > >>
            > > > >>
            > > > >>
            > > > >
            > > > > P.S.: I invite all those who read this message to join "News-
            > > > > Sense"! To subscribe to the group, send an email to:
            > > > >
            > > > > <news_sense-subscribe@yahoogroups.com>
            > > > >
            > > > > Or to visit it on the web, go to:
            > > > >
            > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/news_sense/>
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > >
            > > > P.S.: I invite all those who read this message to join "News-
            > > Sense"!
            > > > To subscribe to the group, send an email to:
            > > >
            > > > <news_sense-subscribe@yahoogroups.com>
            > > >
            > > > Or to visit it on the web, go to:
            > > >
            > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/news_sense/>
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            > P.S.: I invite all those who read this message to join "News-
            Sense"!
            > To subscribe to the group, send an email to:
            >
            > <news_sense-subscribe@yahoogroups.com>
            >
            > Or to visit it on the web, go to:
            >
            > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/news_sense/>
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.