Should UNESCO take total control over all World Heritage Sites and their surroundings to avoid conflicts like this?

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

Two Buddhist countries at war because of a Hindu temple. It would be ridiculous if people weren't dying because of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.95.47.71 (talk) 12:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Should UNESCO take total control over all World Heritage Sites and their surroundings to avoid conflicts like this? Of course not, nations who manage their UNESCO sites in a peaceful and correct way shouldn't have to lose territorial sovereignty because in some distant land, an authoritarian monarchy, where people foolishly worship the king as some sort of demi-god, and a third-world country recovering from genocide are bickering over a temple. Besides, the International Court has ruled that the land belongs to Cambodia, Thailand is obviously being belligerent so that it can get its peoples minds off of the political conflicts taking place in the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.93.16 (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Don't add more problem. This situation is not a child play! Let erase the question now!Reply