NationStates Jolt Archive

www.dailystar.com.lb (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&article_id=8464&categ_id=17)

Ignore international law at your own peril

Saturday, September 18, 2004

Wise indeed was the statement Friday by French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier that, "We have always considered that it's international law that constitutes the framework for any action, notably against terrorism or for stability in the world."

Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Barnier. If the world hopes to turn around the current trajectory toward greater violence and terror, and move instead toward peace and stability, the lynchpin of any such movement must be a universal, ironclad commitment to the rule of law as the organizing principle of relations among nations. So it is right that France backs UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's earlier description of the U.S.-led war on Iraq as "illegal." Annan had said in a BBC radio interview Wednesday that the U.S. had failed to seek a needed second resolution before invading Iraq in March 2003. "I've indicated that it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, and from the charter point of view it was illegal," he said.

This critically important issue should be debated long and loud, so that short-term problems such as we have in Iraq do not recur often, and long-term global peace and security might be promoted through a more universal understanding of the spirit and letter of international law. Washington has responded to the illegal war allegations by claiming it considered that a previous UN resolution passed four months before the war gave it sufficient authority to attack, because Iraq had refused to surrender suspected weapons of mass destruction. The last 18 months of searching in post-Baathist Iraq have turned up no such weapons. So not only was the U.S.-led war illegal, it was also premised on wrong information at best, and a deceptive lie at worst.


If all states were to act as the U.S., Great Britain and others did in waging war on Iraq, the world would be a violent mess - which is more or less what it has become with the explosion of terrorism. Lawlessness begets lawlessness. One of the consequences of strong states unilaterally overriding the rule of law is the phenomenon of counter-lawlessness in the form of bin Laden-style terror. Our objective collectively must be a more comprehensive, universal commitment to the rule of law, by the U.S. and U.K., Israel and Iran, all the Arab states, and anyone else who claims to be a member of the community of civilized nations. Annan and Barnier do well to remind us of this.

Would you expect anything more from the French, or Lebanese (read: Syrians)...?

...So the argument you give here is that a law, once disregarded on the basis of incomplete evidence, is not valid.

Thus the US, having invaded Iraq on a basis of removing WMD's (their stated intention was enforcing a UN ruling against Iraq possessing WMD), finds no evidence of WMD. Thus the US just invaded another nation for...the wrong reasons? Is this summation wrong? The US specifically mentions in the above article that was their intention correct?

Invading another nation is not legal on 'say so' authority in international law. The US does not have a license to invade. Within the context of the UN; the US must provide pressing evidence of national security need before they can invade (the actual rules are of course, a bit complex).

The US failed to do what it said it was going to; destroy Iraq's WMD capability; it failed in this task because there was no capability to destory. A paradox, yes? How can you complete the already completed? Nevertheless it happened.

The UN has now said that the war, within the context of the UN, was not legitimate for just this reason. Do you assert that the international law itself is not valid? That the UN is wrong in its assessment that going to war is wrong when there was no pressing need? That the US can dictate to the UN when it can go to war, not the other way around? Any of these would be arguable...

The article goes on to claim that chaos begets chaos, that unilateral use of force in defiance of the law begets unilateral use of force in defiance of law. You make no assertions here...perhaps because cyclical violence is a well proven theory; and few can argue that killing people is a clean solution to a problem so complex as international terrorism.

...So yes, what else would you expect from those dedicated to perserving law and order in this world? Words that indicate a strong mistrust of power that has ALREADY been misused should certainly been expected. Do you somehow believe that the US failing the UN so dramatically would result in adulation?

"Thank you US! For invading another nation for...reasons other than the ones you stated in your argument to the UN itself! Thank you for telling us that you knew where WMD was when in fact you knew nothing of the sort! Please, use that vast amount of power incorrectly again! After all, its not like the UN was created to prevent the misuse of power or anything!"

...Something like that? Would something like that statement please you? If Kofi Annan just shut his peace-loving mouth and let the REAL MEN strut about killing the wrong people, invading the wrong nations, and ignoring the law; would you find the pleasurable? Would your ego swell, knowing that you spent billions of dollars for nothing more than a badly envisioned whim by a tiny factional group who misused power?

...So the argument you give here is that a law, once disregarded on the basis of incomplete evidence, is not valid.

Thus the US, having invaded Iraq on a basis of removing WMD's (their stated intention was enforcing a UN ruling against Iraq possessing WMD), finds no evidence of WMD. Thus the US just invaded another nation for...the wrong reasons? Is this summation wrong? The US specifically mentions in the above article that was their intention correct?

Invading another nation is not legal on 'say so' authority in international law. The US does not have a license to invade. Within the context of the UN; the US must provide pressing evidence of national security need before they can invade (the actual rules are of course, a bit complex).

The US failed to do what it said it was going to; destroy Iraq's WMD capability; it failed in this task because there was no capability to destory. A paradox, yes? How can you complete the already completed? Nevertheless it happened.

The UN has now said that the war, within the context of the UN, was not legitimate for just this reason. Do you assert that the international law itself is not valid? That the UN is wrong in its assessment that going to war is wrong when there was no pressing need? That the US can dictate to the UN when it can go to war, not the other way around? Any of these would be arguable...

The article goes on to claim that chaos begets chaos, that unilateral use of force in defiance of the law begets unilateral use of force in defiance of law. You make no assertions here...perhaps because cyclical violence is a well proven theory; and few can argue that killing people is a clean solution to a problem so complex as international terrorism.

...So yes, what else would you expect from those dedicated to perserving law and order in this world? Words that indicate a strong mistrust of power that has ALREADY been misused should certainly been expected. Do you somehow believe that the US failing the UN so dramatically would result in adulation?

"Thank you US! For invading another nation for...reasons other than the ones you stated in your argument to the UN itself! Thank you for telling us that you knew where WMD was when in fact you knew nothing of the sort! Please, use that vast amount of power incorrectly again! After all, its not like the UN was created to prevent the misuse of power or anything!"

...Something like that? Would something like that statement please you? If Kofi Annan just shut his peace-loving mouth and let the REAL MEN strut about killing the wrong people, invading the wrong nations, and ignoring the law; would you find the pleasurable? Would your ego swell, knowing that you spent billions of dollars for nothing more than a badly envisioned whim by a tiny factional group who misused power?
Bravo! *applauds*

...So the argument you give here is that a law, once disregarded on the basis of incomplete evidence, is not valid.

Thus the US, having invaded Iraq on a basis of removing WMD's (their stated intention was enforcing a UN ruling against Iraq possessing WMD), finds no evidence of WMD. Thus the US just invaded another nation for...the wrong reasons? Is this summation wrong? The US specifically mentions in the above article that was their intention correct?

Invading another nation is not legal on 'say so' authority in international law. The US does not have a license to invade. Within the context of the UN; the US must provide pressing evidence of national security need before they can invade (the actual rules are of course, a bit complex).

The US failed to do what it said it was going to; destroy Iraq's WMD capability; it failed in this task because there was no capability to destory. A paradox, yes? How can you complete the already completed? Nevertheless it happened.

The UN has now said that the war, within the context of the UN, was not legitimate for just this reason. Do you assert that the international law itself is not valid? That the UN is wrong in its assessment that going to war is wrong when there was no pressing need? That the US can dictate to the UN when it can go to war, not the other way around? Any of these would be arguable...

The article goes on to claim that chaos begets chaos, that unilateral use of force in defiance of the law begets unilateral use of force in defiance of law. You make no assertions here...perhaps because cyclical violence is a well proven theory; and few can argue that killing people is a clean solution to a problem so complex as international terrorism.

...So yes, what else would you expect from those dedicated to perserving law and order in this world? Words that indicate a strong mistrust of power that has ALREADY been misused should certainly been expected. Do you somehow believe that the US failing the UN so dramatically would result in adulation?

"Thank you US! For invading another nation for...reasons other than the ones you stated in your argument to the UN itself! Thank you for telling us that you knew where WMD was when in fact you knew nothing of the sort! Please, use that vast amount of power incorrectly again! After all, its not like the UN was created to prevent the misuse of power or anything!"

...Something like that? Would something like that statement please you? If Kofi Annan just shut his peace-loving mouth and let the REAL MEN strut about killing the wrong people, invading the wrong nations, and ignoring the law; would you find the pleasurable? Would your ego swell, knowing that you spent billions of dollars for nothing more than a badly envisioned whim by a tiny factional group who misused power?

I would state, not argue, simply, that the UN has only the authority that any individual nation gives it.

The UN is not a nation, or a government, and as such should have no right to "enforce" anything.

Only nations have that right.

If a nation decides to do something, ANYTHING, it is allowed to do it and reap the consequences of it's actions.

The UN is not owed a "by your leave" from any nation.

No nation is owed a "by your leave" from the UN.

The UN may think what it likes, and do what it likes. It proves itself what it is with every passing day.

..as do we all.

We shall see what follows from action based on information of "what was known at the time".

Perhaps the surgeon should wait on that "suspected" cancer..?

My contention is that so-called international law is such an artificial construct, that, regardless of your protestations of righteous indignation at the actions of sovereign nations, it is easily hidden behind and abused by the criminal element of the world.

You have, and constantly do, call the US a criminal organization.

I have, and will, call the UN a criminal organization.

The two organizations, it appears, can both be called "criminal".

That leaves us simply with a difference of opinion as to who the "real" criminals are.

The UN is NOT a legislative body (or should not be). It is a body of individual sovereign nations who's function is to discuss and comment on the points of view and desires of it's constituency.

Once the "laws" of the UN gain "enforcement" power, the UN becomes a government, and a nation member, at that point becomes a vassal province of the UN.

This would not be acceptable to the US.

The US will never submit itself into provincial status.

Any law, just like any other type of more or norm, can be used as a tool for terrorism.

Any law, just like any other type of more or norm, can be used as a tool for terrorism.

Quite true. :)

Lawlessness begets lawlessness. One of the consequences of strong states unilaterally overriding the rule of law is the phenomenon of counter-lawlessness in the form of bin Laden-style terror. Our objective collectively must be a more comprehensive, universal commitment to the rule of law, by [those] who claims to be a member of the community of civilized nations.

Would you expect anything more from the French, or Lebanese (read: Syrians)...?
I would expect nothing less from any civilized country on Earth today. I agree with the principle.

Any resolution the UN would have made could not have given authorization to act outside the mandate of the UN. That makes no sense.

I would state, not argue, simply, that the UN has only the authority that any individual nation gives it.

The UN may think what it likes, and do what it likes.
These two statements are contradictory.

If the UN has only the authority any one member nation gives it, then it cannot think and do what it likes, however it likes.

The UN is an entity with as much authority as all the nations that compose it, working together, give it. Like parts of a body. If any parts don't cooperate, like the liver or the brain, the whole thing can collapse, and no one to blame but those parts. It is unfortunate, too, that a few of these parts happen to have the will to threaten to shut-down all the other parts.
(EDIT: okay, that's a poor analogy of the veto-nations. I apoologize, but it's late and I'm tired.)

It is an organization whose intended goal is a step towards world peace. It is not perfect, but if all member nations cared enough to work towards that goal, Elenor's efforts will not have been in vain.

The UN is not a nation, or a government, and as such should have no right to "enforce" anything.

Only nations have that right.

Right. And this hasn't changed, has it? The UN still votes on actions.

Nations are sovereign, not the UN.

The day I have the ability to vote on the structure AND representatives and ececutive body of the UN, is the day I will start to consider that their edicts bind me or my country.

Once the "laws" of the UN gain "enforcement" power, the UN becomes a government, and a nation member, at that point becomes a vassal province of the UN.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but the UN has always had "enforcement" power built into its Charter. Article 42, 43 and 44, enforcable by member nations at the direction of the Security Council, and Article 51.

International law was agreed upon by the United States, in treaty, when they signed on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Lawlessness begets lawlessness. One of the consequences of strong states unilaterally overriding the rule of law is the phenomenon of counter-lawlessness in the form of bin Laden-style terror. Our objective collectively must be a more comprehensive, universal commitment to the rule of law, by [those] who claims to be a member of the community of civilized nations.

Would you expect anything more from the French, or Lebanese (read: Syrians)...?

I would expect nothing less from any civilized country on Earth today. I agree with the principle.

Any resolution the UN would have made could not have given authorization to act outside the mandate of the UN. That makes no sense.

:)

Good to see you (Willamena) somewhere other than in the "religious" areas..!

Now you get to see my more belligerent side..! :D

My basic "dislike" with the UN and with so-called "international law" is that their authority is based on the free will of the "signees" to obey and enforce them.

Because there is no authority above a sovereign nation that that soverign nation does not grant, there is no compulsion for a nation to follow any "law" made by any other nation or supposed "world body".

Now, if a nation or group of nations decide they will enforce their will upon another nation, they, by definition, are permitted to do so, as they may do as they wish,... and they will "suffer" the consequences of doing so.

This means that "international law" is a set of nice agreements, but agreements that can be disregarded at whim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I would state, not argue, simply, that the UN has only the authority that any individual nation gives it.

The UN may think what it likes, and do what it likes.

These two statements are contradictory.

If the UN has only the authority any one member nation gives it, then it cannot think and do what it likes, however it likes.

The UN is an entity with as much authority as all the nations that compose it, working together, give it. Like parts of a body. If any parts don't cooperate, like the liver or the brain, the whole thing can collapse, and no one to blame but those parts. It is unfortunate, too, that a few of these parts happen to have the will to threaten to shut-down all the other parts.
(EDIT: okay, that's a poor analogy of the veto-nations. I apoologize, but it's late and I'm tired.)

It is an organization whose intended goal is a step towards world peace. It is not perfect, but if all member nations cared enough to work towards that goal, Elenor's efforts will not have been in vain.

Any nation may simply ignore any "ruling" of the UN.

Using the "chain only as stong as it's weakest link" analogy, as soon as a single nation ignores a UN "law", that law becomes worthless.

And that's as it should be, because no nation should ever submit to any authority "above" itself.

Once again, if another nation or group of nations decides that this "disobeyance" is worth sanctioning said disobeyer, then they are free to act.

.."It is an organization whose intended goal is a step towards world peace."..

And the way to do that is to provide a place for the nations of the world to talk. NOT to become a world enforcer of extra-nation interests.

It's a lovely hallucination to state that the UN is "intent on world peace", but I would disagree with that premise.

The UN is an attempt at an extra-national government with enforcement powers, and no nation unwilling to subvert itself and it's people should allow such a beast.

In my opinion, as always my opinion, the idea of a safe meeting place for nations to talk and organize amongst themselves is a VERY good thing, and what we need is more airing of points of view, and less wrangling over meaningless legislation.

Wasn't it the French that attacked and sank the Greenpeace ship in New Zealand that resulted in a dead crewmember? Now refresh my memory here....which international law allows for that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The UN is not a nation, or a government, and as such should have no right to "enforce" anything.

Only nations have that right.


Right. And this hasn't changed, has it? The UN still votes on actions.

The UN votes.

Nations ignore.

The UN complains that their "opposers" are criminals.

And nothing happens.

Which is appropriate.

It simply shows the utter impotence of the UN.

And this promotes "world peace" how..?

And, once again, I state (opinion) that this is how it should be..! The UN, as a thing, should be nothing more than a meeting hall. If "enforcement" of the wishes of a nation or nations needs to happen, then those nations interested should organize within the meeting hall, decide on their course of action, and impliment their acts of enforcement as a federation (temporary) of individuals.

How the "majority" votes is irrelevent.

How each individual acts in response to others actions is up to each individual.

Because there is no authority above a sovereign nation that that soverign nation does not grant, there is no compulsion for a nation to follow any "law" made by any other nation or supposed "world body".

From the UN site

When States become Members of the United Nations, they agree to accept the obligations of the UN Charter, an international treaty that sets out basic principles of international relations. According to the Charter, the UN has four purposes: to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.
The authority is granted by the nation as soon as it signs up.
Just because a nation decides not to follow up on it's own agreement doesn't mean it's justified to do so.

If we vote a politician into office and he passes a law that we don't like we are not allowed to break it just because the politician would not have the power had we not given it to him.

Nations ignore.

The UN complains that their "opposers" are criminals.

And nothing happens.

Which is appropriate.

It simply shows the utter impotence of the UN.

Again, compare it to local law.
Just because people ignore a law doesn't mean they should be entitled to do so.

If anything we should give the UN more power to follow up on the rules that are agreed upon.

Then again, with countries only accepting an international tribunal when others are on trial but refusing to submit to it themselves I don't see it happening any day soon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Once the "laws" of the UN gain "enforcement" power, the UN becomes a government, and a nation member, at that point becomes a vassal province of the UN.


Perhaps I'm missing something here, but the UN has always had "enforcement" power built into its Charter. Article 42, 43 and 44, enforcable by member nations at the direction of the Security Council, and Article 51.

International law was agreed upon by the United States, in treaty, when they signed on.

I'm not an expert on the constitution of the UN. :) You may be right.

I would love to see the UN try to enforce one of it's "laws" on the US. A law that we simply disagree with. It would be fascinating.

What is it that history and the american natives teach us about treaties..?

They are worth how much more than the paper they're written on, again..? :)

The word treaty comes from the old root tractare, meaning "to drag about". Eventually those doing the dragging get tired of it.

Aren't words fun..!? :D

The word treaty comes from the old root tractare, meaning "to drag about". Eventually those doing the dragging get tired of it.

Aren't words fun..!? :D

not according to Merriam Webster (http://www.m-w.com) and the online Etymology Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com/) ;)

Etymology: Middle English tretee, from Middle French traité, from Medieval Latin tractatus, from Latin, handling, treatment, from tractare to treat, handle


treaty
14c., "treatment, discussion," from O.Fr. traité "assembly, agreement, treaty," from L. tractus "discussion, handling," from tractare "to handle, manage" (see treat). Sense of "contract between nations" is first recorded 1430.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

Because there is no authority above a sovereign nation that that soverign nation does not grant, there is no compulsion for a nation to follow any "law" made by any other nation or supposed "world body".


From the UN site

Quote:
When States become Members of the United Nations, they agree to accept the obligations of the UN Charter, an international treaty that sets out basic principles of international relations. According to the Charter, the UN has four purposes: to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.


The authority is granted by the nation as soon as it signs up.
Just because a nation decides not to follow up on it's own agreement doesn't mean it's justified to do so.

If we vote a politician into office and he passes a law that we don't like we are not allowed to break it just because the politician would not have the power had we not given it to him.



.."Just because a nation decides not to follow up on it's own agreement doesn't mean it's justified to do so."..

It's perfectly justified in it's own actions, because those actions can not be abridged by membership in ANY extra-national organization.

Yes,.. that logic is entirely circular, as it should be.

.."If we vote a politician into office and he passes a law that we don't like we are not allowed to break it just because the politician would not have the power had we not given it to him."..

An individual may break any law he chooses. The consequences are that the enforcers of that law will deem him a criminal, and punish him, as it can.

A nation may break any law it chooses. The consequences are that the enforcers of that law will deem it a criminal, and punish it, as it can.

If the enforcers are the UN, then they are free to punish it as they see fit.

And what is UN enforcement..?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The word treaty comes from the old root tractare, meaning "to drag about". Eventually those doing the dragging get tired of it.

Aren't words fun..!?


not according to Merriam Webster and the online Etymology Dictionary

Etymology: Middle English tretee, from Middle French traité, from Medieval Latin tractatus, from Latin, handling, treatment, from tractare to treat, handle


treaty
14c., "treatment, discussion," from O.Fr. traité "assembly, agreement, treaty," from L. tractus "discussion, handling," from tractare "to handle, manage" (see treat). Sense of "contract between nations" is first recorded 1430.

Treaty (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=treaty)

Does "tractor" sound familiar..? :)

It's perfectly justified in it's own actions, because those actions can not be abridged by membership in ANY extra-national organization.

Yes,.. that logic is entirely circular, as it should be.
It's responisble for it's own action. The abridgement comes from signing up for the UN and thus agreeing to play by the rules.

An individual may break any law he chooses. The consequences are that the enforcers of that law will deem him a criminal, and punish him, as it can.

A nation may break any law it chooses. The consequences are that the enforcers of that law will deem it a criminal, and punish it, as it can.

If the enforcers are the UN, then they are free to punish it as they see fit.

And what is UN enforcement..?
Correct. My bad for not phrasing it better.

Consequences would normally be sanctions but (and that answers your next question as well) as a lot of countries rely on trade relations with the US we know they won't be enforced. Would they be if the UN had more power?
Who knows. Theoretically it should be possible. Realistically.... I don't dare to put money on it.

Treaty (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=treaty)

Does "tractor" sound familiar..? :)
I agree it does.
Damn all those dictionaries. We have way to many of them telling us different things :D


Btw, homosexual and homo sapiens also sound similar but have completely different meanings ;)

:)
My basic "dislike" with the UN and with so-called "international law" is that their authority is based on the free will of the "signees" to obey and enforce them.

Because there is no authority above a sovereign nation that that soverign nation does not grant, there is no compulsion for a nation to follow any "law" made by any other nation or supposed "world body".

Now, if a nation or group of nations decide they will enforce their will upon another nation, they, by definition, are permitted to do so, as they may do as they wish,... and they will "suffer" the consequences of doing so.

This means that "international law" is a set of nice agreements, but agreements that can be disregarded at whim.
I am not schooled on this, but it was my understanding that sovereign nations who join the UN grant the Security Council authority above them in international matters by virtue of signing the Charter. This, of course, is made a joke by the veto that some nations hold. Your statement does hold true for those (five?) nations.

I am not schooled on this, but it was my understanding that sovereign nations who join the UN grant the Security Council authority above them in international matters by virtue of signing the Charter. This, of course, is made a joke by the veto that some nations hold. Your statement does hold true for those (five?) nations.
You are correct Willamena.
That's the part I quoted from the UN site (http://www.un.org") in one of my earlier posts.

You're also right that the veto is a bit strange when it comes to that.
In this case however the veto isn't relevant as it all relates to rules that have been aproved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
It's perfectly justified in it's own actions, because those actions can not be abridged by membership in ANY extra-national organization.

Yes,.. that logic is entirely circular, as it should be.

It's responisble for it's own action. The abridgement comes from signing up for the UN and thus agreeing to play by the rules.


Quote:
An individual may break any law he chooses. The consequences are that the enforcers of that law will deem him a criminal, and punish him, as it can.

A nation may break any law it chooses. The consequences are that the enforcers of that law will deem it a criminal, and punish it, as it can.

If the enforcers are the UN, then they are free to punish it as they see fit.

And what is UN enforcement..?


Correct. My bad for not phrasing it better.

Consequences would normally be sanctions but (and that answers your next question as well) as a lot of countries rely on trade relations with the US we know they won't be enforced. Would they be if the UN had more power?
Who knows. Theoretically it should be possible. Realistically.... I don't dare to put money on it.

.."It's responisble for it's own action. The abridgement comes from signing up for the UN and thus agreeing to play by the rules."..

But it's impossible to abridge (diminish or reduce in scope) an inherent defining quality of a nation. A nation is not a nation if it submits to extra-national super-sovereignty.

Our definitions of "what was signed up for" differ. :) We signed up for access to a world meeting place to discuss things. We did not sign up for an extra-national legislature and police force.

Do I see a UN with true enforcement power as a good thing. Certainly not. :D

Do I see any one nation with overwhelming police power as a good thing? Only so long as they use that power for the "good".

Do I trust a single country more than a group of countries to wield police powers? Strangely enough I do. The reason is that NO single country can possibly do exactly as they wish, if it massively offends too many countries.

I respect and "have faith in" the "sensible-izing" forces of the "market" of ideas and actions more than I respect or have faith in the freaky legislative sensibilities of an extremely tiny hyper-legalistic clique of human beings who purport to represent their "nations".

Individuals, people and nations, should be known by their actions, not the rules that they "pass".

Reality wins over wishful thinking.

[COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=Navy]

Our definitions of "what was signed up for" differ. :) We signed up for access to a world meeting place to discuss things. We did not sign up for an extra-national legislature and police force.
Ah but that's your definition. Not the definition as laid out by the UN, the definition that your government accepted when they signed up ;)


Do I see a UN with true enforcement power as a good thing. Certainly not. :D
Why not? It's democracy. Something the US claims to strive for all over the world ;)

Do I see any one nation with overwhelming police power as a good thing? Only so long as they use that power for the "good".
Agreed. Alas, throughout history we've seen power corrupts.


Do I trust a single country more than a group of countries to wield police powers? Strangely enough I do. The reason is that NO single country can possibly do exactly as they wish, if it massively offends too many countries.

Unless of course that country can't be touched? You because it's got either superior military power at the moment or other nations depend on it for their livelyhood (trade).


I respect and "have faith in" the "sensible-izing" forces of the "market" of ideas and actions more than I respect or have faith in the freaky legislative sensibilities of an extremely tiny hyper-legalistic clique of human beings who purport to represent their "nations".
Isn't that the entire idea behind democracy though? You elect people hoping they will indeed 'rule' according to the way you think.
As for the 'market of ideas and actions'. Market by it's definition implies multiple parties, not just one country unless of course we are talking about a supermarket ;)


Individuals, people and nations, should be known by their actions, not the rules that they "pass".

Amen (yeah, I know... I'm agnostic but 'amen' seemed appropriate ;) )

Reality wins over wishful thinking.
Sometimes that's grand, at other times that's a bad thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Treaty

Does "tractor" sound familiar..?

I agree it does.
Damn all those dictionaries. We have way to many of them telling us different things


Btw, homosexual and homo sapiens also sound similar but have completely different meanings

As I said, aren't words fun..!? :D

And "homosexual" and "homo sapiens" both have the "homo" sound in them.

And "homo", from indoeuropean "dhghem-", meaning "earth" or "land".

..and I (opinion) take this to infer "of this one and only place" as the meaning.

Thus:

Homosexual: "eathling" sexual (we're all the same)
Homo Sapien: "earthling" of wisdom

..so you MIGHT infer that, if you believe that anyone can love anyone, then you are a "homosexualist".

Hmmmmmmmmm... :D

As I said, aren't words fun..!? :D

And "homosexual" and "homo sapiens" both have the "homo" sound in them.

And "homo", from indoeuropean "dhghem-", meaning "earth" or "land".

..and I (opinion) take this to infer "of this one and only place" as the meaning.

Thus:

Homosexual: "eathling" sexual (we're all the same)
Homo Sapien: "earthling" of wisdom

..so you MIGHT infer that, if you believe that anyone can love anyone, then you are a "homosexualist".

Hmmmmmmmmm... :D
And here I was thinking homo came from the Latin "Homin-".
Your explenation is much more fun though so I think I'll go with that one from now on :D

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

My basic "dislike" with the UN and with so-called "international law" is that their authority is based on the free will of the "signees" to obey and enforce them.

Because there is no authority above a sovereign nation that that soverign nation does not grant, there is no compulsion for a nation to follow any "law" made by any other nation or supposed "world body".

Now, if a nation or group of nations decide they will enforce their will upon another nation, they, by definition, are permitted to do so, as they may do as they wish,... and they will "suffer" the consequences of doing so.

This means that "international law" is a set of nice agreements, but agreements that can be disregarded at whim.

I am not schooled on this, but it was my understanding that sovereign nations who join the UN grant the Security Council authority above them in international matters by virtue of signing the Charter. This, of course, is made a joke by the veto that some nations hold. Your statement does hold true for those (five?) nations.

I'm not schooled in this either, as should be REALLY obvious..! :)

I think the reason that veto power was granted to "some" nations was to supply a "benign dictatorship of several" to reign in the "democratic" power of the majority vote.

And this is exactly why I think that the UN would make a great meeting hall, but as a "governing body" would make a HORRIBLE institution...!

You can call an auditorium a police car if you like, but I'd rather the police were driving actual automobiles. :)

Any nation may simply ignore any "ruling" of the UN.

Using the "chain only as stong as it's weakest link" analogy, as soon as a single nation ignores a UN "law", that law becomes worthless.

And that's as it should be, because no nation should ever submit to any authority "above" itself.

Once again, if another nation or group of nations decides that this "disobeyance" is worth sanctioning said disobeyer, then they are free to act.

.."It is an organization whose intended goal is a step towards world peace."..

And the way to do that is to provide a place for the nations of the world to talk. NOT to become a world enforcer of extra-nation interests.

It's a lovely hallucination to state that the UN is "intent on world peace", but I would disagree with that premise.

The UN is an attempt at an extra-national government with enforcement powers, and no nation unwilling to subvert itself and it's people should allow such a beast.

In my opinion, as always my opinion, the idea of a safe meeting place for nations to talk and organize amongst themselves is a VERY good thing, and what we need is more airing of points of view, and less wrangling over meaningless legislation.

Ahh! Now I understand where you're coming from.

You must live in the United States. :-) They are the only country that never "bought into" the idea of an International Court. And yet, they are the ones most often first to volunteer their forces for armed actions. Go figure.

The whole idea of a "United Nations" is to give a combined council of nations authority over all member nations. Frankly if some nations didn't want that, they shouldn't have signed up. /opinion

The way I understand it, the Security Council is given authority over member nations (by treaty) like a teacher or parent over a child, and if the child rebels, does its own thing, what can the adult do? That child rebelling does not rob the adult of its responsibility. It may seem like the adult has no authority over the child, but it still has a responsibility for (and to) that child. More often, the rebellion is a lack of respect, and there are ways to reassert authority.

If all the member nations grant the UN the respect and cooperation that the principle deserves, like the child granting the adult the authority it deserves, then it can work. This is how it should be. Idealistic as it may seem, it's the best solution we have for international conflicts at the moment.

UN resolutions are just that --resolutions, like treaties or agreements, with all the authority of contract law. And yes, they can be ignored, like any treaty, and often are. Did you expect differently? Diplomacy is used, and when that fails discipline is used (sanctions, embargos). War is a last option, as it should be.

Most people complain that the UN talks too much and doesn't act enough! :)

:)
My basic "dislike" with the UN and with so-called "international law" is that their authority is based on the free will of the "signees" to obey and enforce them.

Because there is no authority above a sovereign nation that that soverign nation does not grant, there is no compulsion for a nation to follow any "law" made by any other nation or supposed "world body".

Now, if a nation or group of nations decide they will enforce their will upon another nation, they, by definition, are permitted to do so, as they may do as they wish,... and they will "suffer" the consequences of doing so.

This means that "international law" is a set of nice agreements, but agreements that can be disregarded at whim.
I would suggest that this is true of all laws. The distinctions come in the ability of the lawmakers to enforce their laws.

EDIT: I should have waited until I read the whole thread before replying.

I no more like the idea of a UN with enforcement powers than I do a government or corporation with the same. However, I recognise that we live in times when this kind of idealism is dangerous and foolhardy.

Wasn't it the French that attacked and sank the Greenpeace ship in New Zealand that resulted in a dead crewmember? Now refresh my memory here....which international law allows for that?
Damn right they did. No international law should allow for that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

Our definitions of "what was signed up for" differ. We signed up for access to a world meeting place to discuss things. We did not sign up for an extra-national legislature and police force.

Ah but that's your definition. Not the definition as laid out by the UN, the definition that your government accepted when they signed up


Quote:
Do I see a UN with true enforcement power as a good thing. Certainly not.


Why not? It's democracy. Something the US claims to strive for all over the world

Quote:
Do I see any one nation with overwhelming police power as a good thing? Only so long as they use that power for the "good".


Agreed. Alas, throughout history we've seen power corrupts.


Quote:
Do I trust a single country more than a group of countries to wield police powers? Strangely enough I do. The reason is that NO single country can possibly do exactly as they wish, if it massively offends too many countries.



Unless of course that country can't be touched? You because it's got either superior military power at the moment or other nations depend on it for their livelyhood (trade).


Quote:
I respect and "have faith in" the "sensible-izing" forces of the "market" of ideas and actions more than I respect or have faith in the freaky legislative sensibilities of an extremely tiny hyper-legalistic clique of human beings who purport to represent their "nations".


Isn't that the entire idea behind democracy though? You elect people hoping they will indeed 'rule' according to the way you think.
As for the 'market of ideas and actions'. Market by it's definition implies multiple parties, not just one country unless of course we are talking about a supermarket


Quote:
Individuals, people and nations, should be known by their actions, not the rules that they "pass".


Amen (yeah, I know... I'm agnostic but 'amen' seemed appropriate )

Quote:
Reality wins over wishful thinking.

Sometimes that's grand, at other times that's a bad thing.


.."Ah but that's your definition. Not the definition as laid out by the UN, the definition that your government accepted when they signed up .."

That's true, and like any other treaty, can and will be disregarded at will.

.."Why not? It's democracy. Something the US claims to strive for all over the world"..

Democracy does not mean "unfettered rule of the majority". There are NO absolutes in the realm of human government. Democracy is not always good. And a world body that all member nations are abjectly subservient to, which possesses police power over it's members, is a description of utter tyrany.

.."The reason is that NO single country can possibly do exactly as they wish, if it massively offends too many countries."..
.."Unless of course that country can't be touched? You because it's got either superior military power at the moment or other nations depend on it for their livelyhood (trade)."..

No country can not be touched. If provoked enough, other countries will inevitably be able to make their will known. I have much faith in the good instincts of my fellow human beings, and they will always see to it that "the good" is promoted.

.."You elect people hoping they will indeed 'rule' according to the way you think."..

Representing the people of a nation in a place to air national interests and points of view is very different from representing nations as captive members of a legislative and police organization.

"Law" stops (outward bound) at national boundries. National interests extend (outward bound) beyond national boundaries.

Convergence of national interests is called "treaty". Divergence of national interests is called "conflict".

.."Reality wins over wishful thinking."..
.."Sometimes that's grand, at other times that's a bad thing."..

And bad things happen to good people, as the old saying goes.

The goal is always to "do what's best for the 'good'..".

I'm of the opinion that as long as the UN thinks it is a legislative and police organization, and not simply a place to talk, it does a huge disservice to the world, and is a wonderful tool for abuse by those who would follow the "judas goat" into the arms of extremists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
As I said, aren't words fun..!?

And "homosexual" and "homo sapiens" both have the "homo" sound in them.

And "homo", from indoeuropean "dhghem-", meaning "earth" or "land".

..and I (opinion) take this to infer "of this one and only place" as the meaning.

Thus:

Homosexual: "eathling" sexual (we're all the same)
Homo Sapien: "earthling" of wisdom

..so you MIGHT infer that, if you believe that anyone can love anyone, then you are a "homosexualist".

Hmmmmmmmmm... :)

And here I was thinking homo came from the Latin "Homin-".
Your explenation is much more fun though so I think I'll go with that one from now on

Of course homin- comes from the latin homo, which is from the indoeuropean "dhghem-", etcetera, etcetera, etcetera,... as the King would say.

:)

.. :) ..



Quick question for you..! (quite off topic)

How do you "quote" while keeping the formating from the message you're quoting..!?

When I quote something, it removes the formating (color, etc.) and I have to re-do it if I want to have it there.

HELP..! :D

That's true, and like any other treaty, can and will be disregarded at will.

That doesn't say anything about whether it's just or not.
An armed robber can and will most likely take your money.


Democracy does not mean "unfettered rule of the majority". There are NO absolutes in the realm of human government. Democracy is not always good. And a world body that all member nations are abjectly subservient to, which possesses police power over it's members, is a description of utter tyrany.

Which technically is no different than the same situtation in an individual nation.



No country can not be touched. If provoked enough, other countries will inevitably be able to make their will known. I have much faith in the good instincts of my fellow human beings, and they will always see to it that "the good" is promoted.

Countries did which is what inspired the entire 'with or against us argument' by Bush.
The fact that expressed their will verbally and not through action falls most likely back on the 2 previous reasons I mentioned, trade and military superiority.



Representing the people of a nation in a place to air national interests and points of view is very different from representing nations as captive members of a legislative and police organization.
How can they be captive members if any proposal can be veto-ed ?



"Law" stops (outward bound) at national boundries. National interests extend (outward bound) beyond national boundaries.

And this is why the concept of international laws was thought up.



Convergence of national interests is called "treaty". Divergence of national interests is called "conflict".

Not quite. Convergence of national interests is agreement which can, but doesn't have to, lead to treaty.


And bad things happen to good people, as the old saying goes.

The goal is always to "do what's best for the 'good'..".


But who decides who the 'good' are?
After all, what's good for one person might be bad for the next.



I'm of the opinion that as long as the UN thinks it is a legislative and police organization, and not simply a place to talk, it does a huge disservice to the world, and is a wonderful tool for abuse by those who would follow the "judas goat" into the arms of extremists.

The governements that started the UN seemed to have a different point of view than you.
I'm of the opinion that an unpoliced 'policeman of the world' is more dangerous as it will put it's own interests before that of the countries it's supposed to protect.
Out of curiousity, why do you think the UN would be a wonderful tool for abuse?

An individual may break any law he chooses. The consequences are that the enforcers of that law will deem him a criminal, and punish him, as it can.

A nation may break any law it chooses. The consequences are that the enforcers of that law will deem it a criminal, and punish it, as it can.

If the enforcers are the UN, then they are free to punish it as they see fit.

And what is UN enforcement..?
The UN "enforces" only by resolution, and that means the agreement of a majority of member nations.

They do not "punish as they see fit"; rather "member nations punish as they are allowed by other member nations through treaty". Most nations agree readily to diplomatic action, even sanctions (though that is changing, too, as it punishes the people rather than the governments). Few nations readily agree to armed action, it takes a lot of talk-talk and negotiation.

"Extra-national super-sovereignty" does not accurately describe the UN. I've used the analogy of the UN as a body and as a parent --does a mind have super-sovereignty over the heart and lungs? Does the parent have super-sovereignty over the family? Not really, no.

Do I see any one nation with overwhelming police power as a good thing? Only so long as they use that power for the "good".
"…for the good of one. " --because that nation will always act in its own best interests above others --that is its responsibility to its citizenry. It has no responsibility outside its borders, except those it accepts by treaty.

NO single country can possibly do exactly as they wish, if it massively offends too many countries.
Exactly. Welcome to the United Nations.
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

Quick question for you..! (quite off topic)

How do you "quote" while keeping the formating from the message you're quoting..!?

When I quote something, it removes the formating (color, etc.) and I have to re-do it if I want to have it there.

HELP..! :D
When I click "quote" to reply to your post, it puts it in the box with all formatting, minus all but the last level of post.

As for formatting other parts, I do it myself, with copy/paste. (Ctrl-C to copy, Ctrl-V to paste)

When I click "quote" to reply to your post, it puts it in the box with all formatting, minus all but the last level of post.

As for formatting other parts, I do it myself, with copy/paste. (Ctrl-C to copy, Ctrl-V to paste)
I've been too lazy to do that but will do it as well from now on :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Any nation may simply ignore any "ruling" of the UN.

Using the "chain only as stong as it's weakest link" analogy, as soon as a single nation ignores a UN "law", that law becomes worthless.

And that's as it should be, because no nation should ever submit to any authority "above" itself.

Once again, if another nation or group of nations decides that this "disobeyance" is worth sanctioning said disobeyer, then they are free to act.

.."It is an organization whose intended goal is a step towards world peace."..

And the way to do that is to provide a place for the nations of the world to talk. NOT to become a world enforcer of extra-nation interests.

It's a lovely hallucination to state that the UN is "intent on world peace", but I would disagree with that premise.

The UN is an attempt at an extra-national government with enforcement powers, and no nation unwilling to subvert itself and it's people should allow such a beast.

In my opinion, as always my opinion, the idea of a safe meeting place for nations to talk and organize amongst themselves is a VERY good thing, and what we need is more airing of points of view, and less wrangling over meaningless legislation.

Ahh! Now I understand where you're coming from.

You must live in the United States. :-) They are the only country that never "bought into" the idea of an International Court. And yet, they are the ones most often first to volunteer their forces for armed actions. Go figure.

The whole idea of a "United Nations" is to give a combined council of nations authority over all member nations. Frankly if some nations didn't want that, they shouldn't have signed up. /opinion

The way I understand it, the Security Council is given authority over member nations (by treaty) like a teacher or parent over a child, and if the child rebels, does its own thing, what can the adult do? That child rebelling does not rob the adult of its responsibility. It may seem like the adult has no authority over the child, but it still has a responsibility for (and to) that child. More often, the rebellion is a lack of respect, and there are ways to reassert authority.

If all the member nations grant the UN the respect and cooperation that the principle deserves, like the child granting the adult the authority it deserves, then it can work. This is how it should be. Idealistic as it may seem, it's the best solution we have for international conflicts at the moment.

UN resolutions are just that --resolutions, like treaties or agreements, with all the authority of contract law. And yes, they can be ignored, like any treaty, and often are. Did you expect differently? Diplomacy is used, and when that fails discipline is used (sanctions, embargos). War is a last option, as it should be.

Most people complain that the UN talks too much and doesn't act enough!

The US is a weird bunch. (D'Uh..!?) :D

I don't presume to speak for anything but MY wacky view of it.

The US doesn't trust anyone. We trust what we can see. We see laws as general guidelines that are to be "thoroughly masticatively cogitated" before being "consumed".

We reserve the right to change our minds.

We are inherently beligerent. But we're very nice about it. Show us some "spunk" and you can call us a friend.

Betray us and you can call us an enemy. Until it's in our interest to call you a friend again.

Everything is provisional.

The UN is a joke to the US. It is merely a place to show off. It is the playground of pretenders and a damn fine show..!

I agree entirely about "if you didn't agree with the conditions, you shouldn't have signed up".

We shouldn't have signed up, but felt is was our responsibility to assist the formation and continuation of a POTENTIAL promoter of "working for the good" in the world.

We treat the institution with the respect that we decide it deserves, just as does any other country.

When the institution acts in our national interest, we are more than happy to contribute our resources. When it acts against our interests, we laugh.

Arrogance..!? Hell yeah..!!! :)

Deal with it.

The UN does talk too much, about the wrong things. It talks about how to control this or that, when it should be talking about why what is happening is happening.

Leave the controlling to those who REALLY wish to control things. The nations who's interests are helped or hindered by the "situation in question".

Talking about what each nation "sees" in the world is what the UN should be doing. Let them argue about each others perceptions, not making "rules"..!

Let them argue like the big funky quasi-disfunctional family that they are..!

..and this is actually what the UN is evolving toward, so I'm feeling more and more positive every day.

:)

Democracy does not mean "unfettered rule of the majority". There are NO absolutes in the realm of human government. Democracy is not always good. And a world body that all member nations are abjectly subservient to, which possesses police power over it's members, is a description of utter tyrany.

The UN does not have "police powers". What they have is an ability to agree and the authority, in the form of the Security Council, to organize member nations to enact agreed-upon actions (we're not supposed to call them wars).

The UN employs Police and Peace-Keepers. Those are the only "police powers" it has, and these people remain a part of their member nations. They are on the pay-role of the UN through compensation of the member nation for their salary. The role of UN Peace-Keepers is defensive, to maintain peace in war-torn areas; the role of UN Police is to provide temporary local law enforcement and to organize local police officers, where the local police force has fallen apart.

When I click "quote" to reply to your post, it puts it in the box with all formatting, minus all but the last level of post.

As for formatting other parts, I do it myself, with copy/paste. (Ctrl-C to copy, Ctrl-V to paste)

Oh,.. OK... Well Poopie..! So I am doing it right, it just refuses to inject and format the previously quoted parts.

I wish it would include those parts, so I wouldn't have copy/paste/format them.

But,.... Oh well..! :)

Ce la vie..! (Or some facsimile thereof.)

The UN is a joke to the US. It is merely a place to show off. It is the playground of pretenders and a damn fine show..!

I have noticed this attitude from my American friends online before, and I have also noticed it's based on minimal information about what the UN is and what it's about. (why isn't there a :shrug: icon?) ;-)

That's true, and like any other treaty, can and will be disregarded at will.

That doesn't say anything about whether it's just or not.
An armed robber can and will most likely take your money.


Democracy does not mean "unfettered rule of the majority". There are NO absolutes in the realm of human government. Democracy is not always good. And a world body that all member nations are abjectly subservient to, which possesses police power over it's members, is a description of utter tyrany.

Which technically is no different than the same situtation in an individual nation.



No country can not be touched. If provoked enough, other countries will inevitably be able to make their will known. I have much faith in the good instincts of my fellow human beings, and they will always see to it that "the good" is promoted.

Countries did which is what inspired the entire 'with or against us argument' by Bush.
The fact that expressed their will verbally and not through action falls most likely back on the 2 previous reasons I mentioned, trade and military superiority.



Representing the people of a nation in a place to air national interests and points of view is very different from representing nations as captive members of a legislative and police organization.
How can they be captive members if any proposal can be veto-ed ?



"Law" stops (outward bound) at national boundries. National interests extend (outward bound) beyond national boundaries.

And this is why the concept of international laws was thought up.



Convergence of national interests is called "treaty". Divergence of national interests is called "conflict".

Not quite. Convergence of national interests is agreement which can, but doesn't have to, lead to treaty.


And bad things happen to good people, as the old saying goes.

The goal is always to "do what's best for the 'good'..".


But who decides who the 'good' are?
After all, what's good for one person might be bad for the next.



I'm of the opinion that as long as the UN thinks it is a legislative and police organization, and not simply a place to talk, it does a huge disservice to the world, and is a wonderful tool for abuse by those who would follow the "judas goat" into the arms of extremists.

The governements that started the UN seemed to have a different point of view than you.
I'm of the opinion that an unpoliced 'policeman of the world' is more dangerous as it will put it's own interests before that of the countries it's supposed to protect.
Out of curiousity, why do you think the UN would be a wonderful tool for abuse?

And I agree with everything you've said..! :)

*) Justice is a matter of interpretation.
*) Any government can be perverse.
*) People will always push for "the good" on the whole.
*) Sometimes a (limted) dictatorship IS necessary.
*) International law is a useful construct, and a sensless one, simultaneously.
*) "A treaty" is something to drag around,.. "convergence of interests" is pal-hood.
*) "The Good" will come out in the wash
*) There is no policeman of the world, only nations that wish to act as a policeman, and they will be reigned in by "the good" of the world.

The UN would be a wonderful tool of abuse if it was "truly majority-led democratic" and had it's own powers to police.

While terrorists, anarchists, and communists (just being provocative! :) ) perform a useful function, exactly analogous to fungus, rust, and ants (among other things), that function is anti-life (anti-negentropic) and must be targeted and destroyed. They would use the nooks-and-crannies created for them by this "evil" UN to establish a permanent foothold and a "constant medium grade infection/infestation" as opposed to the very low grade infection/infestation that we have now.

Luckily, the UN as it now is, and as it's evolving, is going in the correct direction.

:)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Democracy does not mean "unfettered rule of the majority". There are NO absolutes in the realm of human government. Democracy is not always good. And a world body that all member nations are abjectly subservient to, which possesses police power over it's members, is a description of utter tyrany.

The UN does not have "police powers". What they have is an ability to agree and the authority, in the form of the Security Council, to organize member nations to enact agreed-upon actions (we're not supposed to call them wars).

The UN employs Police and Peace-Keepers. Those are the only "police powers" it has, and these people remain a part of their member nations. They are on the pay-role of the UN through compensation of the member nation for their salary. The role of UN Peace-Keepers is defensive, to maintain peace in war-torn areas; the role of UN Police is to provide temporary local law enforcement and to organize local police officers, where the local police force has fallen apart.

And that is very good..!

And it should stay that way.

And when a nation (or more correctly a group of people within a nation) so offends the sensibilities of another nation(s) that the offender is deemed a cancer (to the offended) that must be excised, the offended nation may do what it can and will to do so.

And the UN shall merely stand by and comment.

And if the UN says the offended is a "criminal", then the offended will laugh at them and call them names.

..and the game shall continue...

One of the reasons for this view in the U.S. with regards to the U.N. being a joke is evidenced in the fact that bodies of the U.N. such as the Human Rights section most often are chaired by some of the worlds most heinous human rights offenders. When Sudan, for example, becomes a champion of real human rights it should be allowed on the commission however this is not the case.

As for the UN being a world governmental body, over my dead body. I am an American and have enough issues with my own government which is controlled by people I definitely didn't vote for. Apply my own angst on the scale of having to deal with a government more or less elected by a foreign country telling me what I should and should not do? To use the oft abused New Yorker slang and saying "Fuhget about it!"

The U.S. and indeed many other nations (even those in Europe) bristle at the idea of submitting their nation and their own rights to what is, for lack of a better term, a foreign government. In the U.S. we elect our leader knowing at least that he or she is an American and therefore someone we could deal with. However to have the will of foreign countries imposed on us by the election of someone who is not of our nation would be the ultimate worst case scenario (and people think the recounts in florida were a nightmare).

As for democracy it's a grand idea however no one on this planet will ever know true democracy, the reason is quite simply because democracy in its purist form is nothing more than a tyranny of the majority. That is why the U.S. is not a democracy but rather a democratic republic with a representative government. There are majorities but those majorities which make out laws are balanced in other ways.

Do I think the U.S. can export our government and "democracy" throughout the world, nope not a snow balls chance in hades of that ever working. The reason being is that people everywhere are different and one mans heaven is anothers hell. It took 200+ years of revolution (both internal and external) and several other hills to get us where we are and we still do not have it perfectly right. You cannot just bundle it up and ship it to another country let alone try to apply it through a global body such as the U.N.

And I agree with everything you've said..! :)
I hate it when you do that ;)
The entire debate annihilated with 1 sentence.



The UN would be a wonderful tool of abuse if it was "truly majority-led democratic" and had it's own powers to police.

While terrorists, anarchists, and communists (just being provocative! :) ) perform a useful function, exactly analogous to fungus, rust, and ants (among other things), that function is anti-life (anti-negentropic) and must be targeted and destroyed. They would use the nooks-and-crannies created for them by this "evil" UN to establish a permanent foothold and a "constant medium grade infection/infestation" as opposed to the very low grade infection/infestation that we have now.
I agree but I think that's cause I live in a Western country.
Had I lived in the Middle East (aside from Israel) I might have felt different about it.


Luckily, the UN as it now is, and as it's evolving, is going in the correct direction.

:)
I think the UN will lose more power all the time.
The US has set a precedent that goes 'unpunished' so it's likely other countries will follow.
Personally I think it's a shame as the UN does a lot of good work. I do hope that if they lose 'power' as an international legislator (which I think will happen) they will grow stronger in the humanitarian field.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The UN is a joke to the US. It is merely a place to show off. It is the playground of pretenders and a damn fine show..!


I have noticed this attitude from my American friends online before, and I have also noticed it's based on minimal information about what the UN is and what it's about. (why isn't there a :shrug: icon?) ;-)

No doubt you're right..!

As I've said, I'm not that versed in the UN constitution. The reason being is that it's JUST TOO COMPLICATED..!

Another salient feature of Americans... incredible impatience with hyper-complexity. :D

"If it's too complex, it's an attempt to manipulate me!" is the thinking.

We have "people to do that" of course,... but, for exactly the same reason that we have only TWO political parties (the others do NOT count), if it's not a simple decision based on simple information, it's a manipulation.

If the perveyors of said information can't boil it down to a few simple points, it's not REALLY worth considering because the purveyors are not serious.

If you are serious, you WILL boil it down.

We don't have time to listen to people who can't get to the point, and aren't serious about "selling" their wares..! :D

And this is why the Americans have power, and freedom, and why everyone wants to come here,.. and why we consider anyone from anywhere with our frame of mind, regardless of color, religion, pennies in pocket, language, hat size,... to BE AMERICANS..!

And we'll kick them around in playful mock-torture, and call them friend and fellow after they give us a good kick back.

:D

*) There is no policeman of the world, only nations that wish to act as a policeman, and they will be reigned in by "the good" of the world.

The Coalition of the Willing wasn't.

As I've said, I'm not that versed in the UN constitution. The reason being is that it's JUST TOO COMPLICATED..!

Oh, god, I know that feeling! But then I counter with, If I can understand it, anybody can. :) The details are complicated, the big picture is easy.

Oh, god, I know that feeling! But then I counter with, If I can understand it, anybody can. :) The details are complicated, the big picture is easy.

Hmmmm, I'm not too sure. Willamena seems like a pretty smart cookie.
That said, Iakeokeo doesn't sound too dumb either so I think in this case Willamena could use that counter ;) :D

Besides, if Zandalm can understand it anybody can :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
And I agree with everything you've said..!

I hate it when you do that
The entire debate annihilated with 1 sentence.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The UN would be a wonderful tool of abuse if it was "truly majority-led democratic" and had it's own powers to police.

While terrorists, anarchists, and communists (just being provocative! ) perform a useful function, exactly analogous to fungus, rust, and ants (among other things), that function is anti-life (anti-negentropic) and must be targeted and destroyed. They would use the nooks-and-crannies created for them by this "evil" UN to establish a permanent foothold and a "constant medium grade infection/infestation" as opposed to the very low grade infection/infestation that we have now.


I agree but I think that's cause I live in a Western country.
Had I lived in the Middle East (aside from Israel) I might have felt different about it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

Luckily, the UN as it now is, and as it's evolving, is going in the correct direction.


I think the UN will lose more power all the time.
The US has set a precedent that goes 'unpunished' so it's likely other countries will follow.
Personally I think it's a shame as the UN does a lot of good work. I do hope that if they lose 'power' as an international legislator (which I think will happen) they will grow stronger in the humanitarian field.

Damned Agreeableness..! Destroyer of Worlds..!

Shiva was the patron goddess of "Agreeableness" you know..!

If you lived in a middle-eastern country (non-israel) you would be someone else entirely. If you felt put upon, and had a WHOLE bunch of friends who decided that you all would be THE SINGLE NICEST AND MOST AGREEABLE people on the face of the planet in responce to it, the so-called "scarey assed middle-east" might look a whole lot different.

The UN is losing power all the time. It's evolving into what it needs, and I think wants, to be, which is a world meeting hall, university and fire station.

More power to them in that..! :)

It's evolving into what it needs, and I think wants, to be, which is a world meeting hall, university and fire station.

MOer power to them in that..! :)
We can only hope. (little booya)

One of the reasons for this view in the U.S. with regards to the U.N. being a joke is evidenced in the fact that bodies of the U.N. such as the Human Rights section most often are chaired by some of the worlds most heinous human rights offenders. When Sudan, for example, becomes a champion of real human rights it should be allowed on the commission however this is not the case.

As for the UN being a world governmental body, over my dead body. I am an American and have enough issues with my own government which is controlled by people I definitely didn't vote for. Apply my own angst on the scale of having to deal with a government more or less elected by a foreign country telling me what I should and should not do? To use the oft abused New Yorker slang and saying "Fuhget about it!"

The U.S. and indeed many other nations (even those in Europe) bristle at the idea of submitting their nation and their own rights to what is, for lack of a better term, a foreign government. In the U.S. we elect our leader knowing at least that he or she is an American and therefore someone we could deal with. However to have the will of foreign countries imposed on us by the election of someone who is not of our nation would be the ultimate worst case scenario (and people think the recounts in florida were a nightmare).

As for democracy it's a grand idea however no one on this planet will ever know true democracy, the reason is quite simply because democracy in its purist form is nothing more than a tyranny of the majority. That is why the U.S. is not a democracy but rather a democratic republic with a representative government. There are majorities but those majorities which make out laws are balanced in other ways.

Do I think the U.S. can export our government and "democracy" throughout the world, nope not a snow balls chance in hades of that ever working. The reason being is that people everywhere are different and one mans heaven is anothers hell. It took 200+ years of revolution (both internal and external) and several other hills to get us where we are and we still do not have it perfectly right. You cannot just bundle it up and ship it to another country let alone try to apply it through a global body such as the U.N.

.."Do I think the U.S. can export our government and "democracy" throughout the world, nope not a snow balls chance in hades of that ever working."..

.."You cannot just bundle it up and ship it to another country let alone try to apply it through a global body such as the U.N."..

Absolutely. Though if we can educate them here (in the US), then we can help them to impliment what they learn.

But it's still for them to apply as they see fit.

You also can't impose it with a gun. But you can use your best surgical tools to remove the abject evil bits.

Thus allowing the patient to heal properly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
*) There is no policeman of the world, only nations that wish to act as a policeman, and they will be reigned in by "the good" of the world.


The Coalition of the Willing wasn't.

They weren't stopped from their "righteous cause", if that's what you mean.

The moral value judgement you place on their actions are yours, of course.

The overall judgement will be assigned in the future. And it too will be debated incessantly forever.

One side pointing at their issues, the other at their own issues.

..and the game continues..

:)

Absolutely. Though if we can educate them here (in the US), then we can help them to impliment what they learn.

But it's still for them to apply as they see fit.

You also can't impose it with a gun. But you can use your best surgical tools to remove the abject evil bits.

Thus allowing the patient to heal properly.

Agrees however the keyword is surgically, you can't be hamfisted and just invade a country then call it a day and declare Mission Accomplished.

The most successful modern democracy (the U.S. despite our flaws) did not achieve our republic nor our freedom because of an invasion by a foreign power, we had our own internal revolution with the assistance of France towards the end. Had we done something similar in Iraq when the Shia Revolted after the first gulf war (instead of letting saddam get his helicopters going) we would probably have been a lot more successful in obtaining the goal which now eludes us.

Education in the U.S. would be another good start, that is if they allowed their citizenry to be educated here. Then again with the way things have been going and how this country has acted over the past few years we can't be held up as the model we once were. That's just a plain fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
As I've said, I'm not that versed in the UN constitution. The reason being is that it's JUST TOO COMPLICATED..!


Oh, god, I know that feeling! But then I counter with, If I can understand it, anybody can. The details are complicated, the big picture is easy.


When they find an interest in the particulars, they will look into it, and they will come to an understanding of it.

I agree,... the vast majority of people can understand almost anything, with the possible exception of my father and anything to do with his computer.

The point is what is it that creates the interest to find out..?

And that's the failing of both the purveyor and the learner.

But then,.. can you really blame them when there is SO MUCH to deal with these days that it's very hard to hear the music for the noise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Absolutely. Though if we can educate them here (in the US), then we can help them to impliment what they learn.

But it's still for them to apply as they see fit.

You also can't impose it with a gun. But you can use your best surgical tools to remove the abject evil bits.

Thus allowing the patient to heal properly.


Agrees however the keyword is surgically, you can't be hamfisted and just invade a country then call it a day and declare Mission Accomplished.

The most successful modern democracy (the U.S. despite our flaws) did not achieve our republic nor our freedom because of an invasion by a foreign power, we had our own internal revolution with the assistance of France towards the end. Had we done something similar in Iraq when the Shia Revolted after the first gulf war (instead of letting saddam get his helicopters going) we would probably have been a lot more successful in obtaining the goal which now eludes us.

Education in the U.S. would be another good start, that is if they allowed their citizenry to be educated here. Then again with the way things have been going and how this country has acted over the past few years we can't be held up as the model we once were. That's just a plain fact.

Some form of supported internal insurrection would be the best solution.

Oh well,... sometimes circumstances just aren't taken advantage of, or don't happen, and you end up doing the non-optimal thing.

Oh well. Such is history.

It's tough to be the big dog.

(( By the way, if you want to see what I consider an incredibly good real-life metaphorical model of the "archetypical American", check out A&E's [Arts and Entertainment] "Bounty Hunter" starring [?] Dog Chapman. ))

(( I may start another thread, "Dog Chapman as archetypical American". ))

:)

[(( By the way, if you want to see what I consider an incredibly good real-life metaphorical model of the "archetypical American", check out A&E's [Arts and Entertainment] "Bounty Hunter" starring [?] Dog Chapman. ))

(( I may start another thread, "Dog Chapman as archetypical American". ))

:)

There is a show coming to HBO entitled "The Family" about an entire family of bounty hunters that should prove interesting.

There is a show coming to HBO entitled "The Family" about an entire family of bounty hunters that should prove interesting.

Hmmm.. interesting.

It's the guy, and his family, that I find most interesting about the show. Not the fact that they are bounty hunters, per se. :)

I did start a new thread about Dog, by the way.

There is a show coming to HBO entitled "The Family" about an entire family of bounty hunters that should prove interesting.
No offense, but an entire family of Crocodile Hunters sounds more interesting. ;-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreggas
There is a show coming to HBO entitled "The Family" about an entire family of bounty hunters that should prove interesting.


No offense, but an entire family of Crocodile Hunters sounds more interesting. ;-)

An entire family of crodiles hunting bounty hunters in the swamp..!

Excellent..!

:D

I would state, not argue, simply, that the UN has only the authority that any individual nation gives it.

The UN is not a nation, or a government, and as such should have no right to "enforce" anything.

...

The US will never submit itself into provincial status.
Actually, by becoming members of the UN, nations give the UN the right to make international rules and enforce them. If a country doesn't want to be subject to UN laws, it should not join the organisation.

Why do Americans think that they are sacrificing their sovereignty by listening to the UN when it fails to be a US tool?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I would state, not argue, simply, that the UN has only the authority that any individual nation gives it.

The UN is not a nation, or a government, and as such should have no right to "enforce" anything.

...

The US will never submit itself into provincial status.

Actually, by becoming members of the UN, nations give the UN the right to make international rules and enforce them. If a country doesn't want to be subject to UN laws, it should not join the organisation.

Why do Americans think that they are sacrificing their sovereignty by listening to the UN when it fails to be a US tool?

.."Actually, by becoming members of the UN, nations give the UN the right to make international rules and enforce them. If a country doesn't want to be subject to UN laws, it should not join the organisation."..

Because it's easier to be a member (a FOUNDING member by the way), and enjoy the "benefits" of being a member, and yet ignore any rules we don't like.

The great toothless one (the UN) is very easy to simply disregard.

And the moment the UN develops "real teeth", we will destroy it.

.."Why do Americans think that they are sacrificing their sovereignty by listening to the UN when it fails to be a US tool?"..

Because, unlike countries that would rather be ruled over by people "smarter" than themselves, the US feels that any rules that we obey should be only those we agree with, as we are a nation, and not a "world" province.

:D

Because, unlike countries that would rather be ruled over by people "smarter" than themselves,
Correct, the reason we'd never have voted Bush in office :P:P

Sorry, that one was too easy to resist.
Alas, with the 2 candidates that had a chance during your last election I can't even say who I would have voted for if I had to choose.

Because, unlike countries that would rather be ruled over by people "smarter" than themselves, the US feels that any rules that we obey should be only those we agree with, as we are a nation, and not a "world" province.

:D
Why do you feel they are "smarter" than yourselves?

A province is practically a nation. Looking at Canada, if Alberta and Quebec followed up on their threats to leave the Confederation, it wouldn't have too much affect at all on their relationship with the feds. It would require new treaties, elections, and a lot of paperwork, and then there's printing of currency, etc. It's more the hassle than anything that keeps Canada together.

(PS the Queen is coming to visit in May (http://www.gov.ab.ca/acn/200409/17066783E69A9-5EB9-4FD1-AA3A212B8F0E72C7.html)!)

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=world_home&articleID=1717273UNITED NATIONS (CP) - Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin says the UN needs to adopt specific rules or intervening to protect vulnerable people around the world and prevent humanitarian catastrophes.

In a speech Wednesday to the UN General Assembly, Martin blasted delays in responding to the civil war in Sudan, which has reportedly killed 50,000 people and forced more than a million others to flee their villages.

"The Security Council has been bogged down in debating the issue," said Martin, who pledged $20 million Cdn to assist the African Union in its drive to quell fighting between government-backed militias and rebel groups.

"While the international community struggles with definitions, the people of Darfur struggle with disaster. They are hungry, they are homeless, they are sick and many have been driven out of their own country. Tens of thousands have been murdered, raped and assaulted," told the gathering.

"Our common humanity should be a powerful enough argument and that is precisely what is missing. Put simply, there is still no explicit provision in international law for intervention on humanitarian grounds."

Martin suggested the UN has a responsibility to put people first in non-crisis situations as well, including providing more aid to small businesses in developing countries to lift everyone's chances of a better life."
This is relevant to the earlier thread. The UN exists not just as a body of nations to sit around and talk-talk. They also actively participate in humanity, through peace-keeping and charitable work, to promote the other half of its mandate, which is improving the quality of life for all humans. What is suggested here is that where a humanitarian crisis is identified (and strict parameters would have to be set for that) that the UN mobilize nations to effect some intervention.

A good thing? I think so. (I don't have any misconception that the UN is taking over the world by taking the lead in organizing such actions.) Just as some adults are unfit to be parents, some national leaders are unfit to be governments. As a "community" the world should respond to do something about it, and have the means to do so.