bush: U.N. is old and should be_reformed

[zimv20]

link (http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&id=276116)


Bush tells Koizumi U.N. is old and should be_reformed

Saturday, October 18, 2003 at 07:00 JST
TOKYO — U.S. President George Bush told Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi over dinner Friday night that the United Nations is "old" and its structure should be reformed, according to a senior Japanese foreign ministry official.

Bush made the comment after Koizumi asked him to "consider making better use of the United Nations" to spread America's ideals of freedom and democracy, the official told reporters.

Koizumi's comments, which was made at a time of a rift in the international community over the U.N. role in war-torn Iraq, followed remarks about the importance of Japan-U.S. ties in an evening meeting.

"I would like to raise one point," Koizumi was quoted as saying. "I believe that the U.S. has the vision and intention of spreading freedom and democracy, along with good will," he said. "But for that to be accepted widely, I believe it is necessary for the U.S. to think about utilizing the U.N. more."

"I think it is important for the U.S. to give backing to the U.N.," he was quoted as saying.

According to the official, Bush told Koizumi that he agrees, but the problem is that the U.N. is outdated, and that it is in need of structural reforms.

(more)

[idea_hamster]

This just goes to show what a spoiled brat GWB is. Any type of organization that daddy can't force to do what Georgie wants must be somehow broken. That's the way it was with his bankrupt oil partnerships; that's the way it was with the Rangers -- how does a 2% owner get branded as the "owner", anyway?

No different from his sentiment that the White House should somehow be able to "force" a vote on judicial nominees to the federal bench when he found out that the Democrats in the Senate were going to resist a vote.

What a tool.
[/rant]

While I won't say that I "agree" with GWB, even a broken clock is right twice a day -- there could be a better way to organize the UN now that the Security Council no longer comprises all the nuclear powers.

[Phil Of Mac]

The UN needs to either get fixed or dumped, but DubyaBush isn't the man to suggest how.

[yamabushi]

The UN is only really a meeting palce for almost all nations to discuss things. If a world government of some kind is what is desired, than forming an entirely new organization might be a better idea.

An organization that promotes freedom and democracy with the power to enforce those ideals among its members may be more in the best interests of the United States. Strict rules of order would have to maintained to prevent the abuse of power by any single member, including the U.S. Member nations would donate 90%-100% of their military resources to this supranational organization which would protect the safety and security of all members. International laws can be made and enforced by the body of member nations.

This is just one idea but I believe that some kind of organization based on ideological principles would be more effective at governance than the UN which is inclusive of all nations it recognizes (even brutal dictatorships). The UN will never be able to impose a single method of governance because of this inclusiveness and thus cannot grow beyond what it is now.

[Code101]

Originally posted by yamabushi
The UN is only really a meeting palce for almost all nations to discuss things. If a world government of some kind is what is desired, than forming an entirely new organization might be a better idea.

An organization that promotes freedom and democracy with the power to enforce those ideals among its members may be more in the best interests of the United States. Strict rules of order would have to maintained to prevent the abuse of power by any single member, including the U.S. Member nations would donate 90%-100% of their military resources to this supranational organization which would protect the safety and security of all members. International laws can be made and enforced by the body of member nations.

This is just one idea but I believe that some kind of organization based on ideological principles would be more effective at governance than the UN which is inclusive of all nations it recognizes (even brutal dictatorships). The UN will never be able to impose a single method of governance because of this inclusiveness and thus cannot grow beyond what it is now.

No way!

This is crazy! The USA will never give up it's military! The only super government I want to see is the US government. No world government. The founding fathers would turn in their graves if that happened.

I agree with President Bush. I think the UN has too much power as it is!

[Phil Of Mac]

I think every country should adopt the Swiss foreign policy. We would have world peace and free trade within six months.

[Sayhey]

Bush is right the UN is old and in need of reorganization. I suggest he lead the way by paying up the US dues, submitting the actions of the US to scrutiny by the International Criminal Court, and giving up the US right to veto in the Security Council. Maybe then the will of the people of the world would be heard and the dictates of the powerful few would not stifle the world's flawed, but only representative body.

[Code101]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Bush is right the UN is old and in need of reorganization. I suggest he lead the way by paying up the US dues, submitting the actions of the US to scrutiny by the International Criminal Court, and giving up the US right to veto in the Security Council. Maybe then the will of the people of the world would be heard and the dictates of the powerful few would not stifle the world's flawed, but only representative body.

Could you tell me why we would want to give up our right to veto?

Better yet, we should just get out of the UN and tell them to get out of New York!

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Bush is right the UN is old and in need of reorganization. I suggest he lead the way by paying up the US dues, submitting the actions of the US to scrutiny by the International Criminal Court, and giving up the US right to veto in the Security Council. Maybe then the will of the people of the world would be heard and the dictates of the powerful few would not stifle the world's flawed, but only representative body.

The purpose of the veto is so that the world's powers have veto power. The US is a world power. If we give up our veto, then China, Russia, the UK, and France ought to too.

I say, veto the UN!

[Code101]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
The purpose of the veto is so that the world's powers have veto power. The US is a world power. If we give up our veto, then China, Russia, the UK, and France ought to too.

I say, veto the UN!

Amen!

I can't figure out why any American would want to give up everything. What American in their right mind would give up the power to veto as well as allow a corrupt body to judge our military? It is pure crazy!

go to www.getusout.org

[g5man]

Someone once said that the UN draws any measure of power simply from the fact that it is based in New York. If it was based in any other country, no one would care about its decisions. Actually I am not sure too many countries actually abide by the resoultions the UN passes.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by g5man
Someone once said that the UN draws any measure of power simply from the fact that it is based in New York. If it was based in any other country, no one would care about its decisions. Actually I am not sure too many countries actually abide by the resoultions the UN passes.

The countries the UN is supposed to control, like Iraq and Israel, sure don't. Which highlights the core failing of the UN: it passes resolutions that don't mean anything.

If we gave the UN the power to enforce their resolutions though, that would be even worse. We don't need the UN running around with a huge army saying, "Respect my authoritah!" It's bad enough when the US does it.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Code101
No way!

This is crazy! The USA will never give up it's military! The only super government I want to see is the US government. No world government. The founding fathers would turn in their graves if that happened.

Ironic. The founding fathers recognised the need for a stronger centralised power while balancing the autonomy of inidvidual states, hence the Constitution.

If they'd agree on anything today, they'd agree that the UN, like the US under the Articles of Confederation, is to weak to be effective.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Ironic. The founding fathers recognised the need for a stronger centralised power while balancing the autonomy of inidvidual states, hence the Constitution.

If they'd agree on anything today, they'd agree that the UN, like the US under the Articles of Confederation, is to weak to be effective.

If there were any sane people on Earth, and they are, they would agree, and they do, that unifying the world won't be done politically, it'll be done economically.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
If there were any sane people on Earth, and they are, they would agree, and they do, that unifying the world won't be done politically, it'll be done economically.

Economically first, politically second.

It will be gradual, and some of the more powerful nations will fight it (coughUScough) because they want to be the sole authority forever, but it has to happen. The world is getting smaller and the gradual ascendence of the EU into a "United States of Europe" with common and centralised political and military power will be the model.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
The purpose of the veto is so that the world's powers have veto power. The US is a world power. If we give up our veto, then China, Russia, the UK, and France ought to too.

I say, veto the UN!

Phil, I know what the purpose of the veto is, but my very sarcastic point was that Bush trying to reform the UN is ironic in the extreme because the US and the other permanent five members of the Security council are a large part of the problem.

As to a veto of the UN, why don't we go back to the "good ole" days of yore when there were no constraints on the powerful nations of the world to impose their will on the less powerful? Seeing that the UN charter and the rule of law doesn't have a perfect record, it makes perfect sense to get rid of it, right? The sarcasm is intended.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Economically first, politically second.

It will be gradual, and some of the more powerful nations will fight it (coughUScough) because they want to be the sole authority forever, but it has to happen. The world is getting smaller and the gradual ascendence of the EU into a "United States of Europe" with common and centralised political and military power will be the model.

I don't think there will ever be a world government, nor do I think it'll ever be necessary. You could have a totally globalized world where the largest political authority would be the county. If they try to globalize politically, they'll just screw the whole thing up, just like when they fix any problem with politics.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Phil, I know what the purpose of the veto is, but my very sarcastic point was that Bush trying to reform the UN is ironic in the extreme because the US and the other permanent five members of the Security council are a large part of the problem.

As to a veto of the UN, why don't we go back to the "good ole" days of yore when there were no constraints on the powerful nations of the world to impose their will on the less powerful? Seeing that the UN charter and the rule of law doesn't have a perfect record, it makes perfect sense to get rid of it, right? The sarcasm is intended.

Let's make a deal. The US becomes neutral forever, but we don't have to do anything for, with, or about the UN. Deal?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
If they try to globalize politically, they'll just screw the whole thing up, just like when they fix any problem with politics.

As opposed to what? When we "fix" problems with military force?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Let's make a deal. The US becomes neutral forever, but we don't have to do anything for, with, or about the UN. Deal?

Sorry, no deal. I like the fantasy of the US as a new Switzerland, but not at the expense of throwing out the rule of law in the international arena.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Sayhey
As opposed to what? When we "fix" problems with military force?

Military force is a form of politics. War is, after all, the extension of political policy by force.

I suspect we don't actually disagree. You're misdirecting your rage at American imperialism at someone who fully agrees with you.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Sorry, no deal. I like the fantasy of the US as a new Switzerland, but not at the expense of throwing out the rule of law in the international arena.

I didn't advocate throwing out the rule of law in the international arena. I advocated throwing out the UN. Equating the two is a common delusion.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Military force is a form of politics. War is, after all, the extension of political policy by force.

I suspect we don't actually disagree. You're misdirecting your rage at American imperialism at someone who fully agrees with you.

Sorry, no rage intended toward you.

Perhaps you can clarify what you mean when you say,
If they try to globalize politically, they'll just screw the whole thing up, just like when they fix any problem with politics.

Political solutions of problems usally means peaceful, if often messy ones. If you want to take War as an extension of politics by other means (excuse me Clauswitz for the paraphrase) that is ok by me, but please explain the alternative that you imply in your quote.

[pseudobrit]

It's interesting to see how the different sides arrive at their opinions.

Those who favor a more potent UN want it because they seek a central democratic authority. They see the US as too domineering and undemocratic a force over the current UN. They'd accept it if the US got out of the UN, declared neutrality and really practiced it. Either way, it's got to be a two-way street. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Those who oppose the UN and want the US out of it do so because they want the US to be the sole power in the world without restrictions and limitations on what we do. They think that the US is such a great democracy that we should do whatever we please; that our freedoms at home give us the authority to take them away from others. They like the idea of dictatorship for other nations and democracy for us, so long as we're the dictators.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
I didn't advocate throwing out the rule of law in the international arena. I advocated throwing out the UN. Equating the two is a common delusion.

No, it is not synonymous, but it is the cornerstone of International law in the case of conflict between nations.

[Phil Of Mac]

And I'm the exception. I don't support the "US as world global dictator" camp or the "UN as world global dictator" camp. I support the "Let's not have a world global dictator" camp.

What's the alternative? Trade! Cultural contact! People, not governments, associating, dealing, trading, meeting each other, falling in love with each other, regardless of national boundaries! Globalization is too important to be left to the politicians and those corporations with political influence.

Which is exactly the problem with the WTO. The WTO is a bunch of corrupt politicians trying to get the right favors for a bunch of corrupt corporations, and trying to bend the trade regulations to help their pals. That's the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, the UN, and the United States government in a nutshell.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Sayhey
No, it is not synonymous, but it is the cornerstone of International law in the case of conflict between nations.

If the US is neutral it won't get into very many conflicts now will it? The rest of you can play in your UN, until you become neutral as well.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
And I'm the exception. I don't support the "US as world global dictator" camp or the "UN as world global dictator" camp. I support the "Let's not have a world global dictator" camp.

What's the alternative? Trade! Cultural contact! People, not governments, associating, dealing, trading, meeting each other, falling in love with each other, regardless of national boundaries! Globalization is too important to be left to the politicians and those corporations with political influence.

Which is exactly the problem with the WTO. The WTO is a bunch of corrupt politicians trying to get the right favors for a bunch of corrupt corporations, and trying to bend the trade regulations to help their pals. That's the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, the UN, and the United States government in a nutshell.

I agree with your first two paragraphs, but the last does not necessarily follow the logic of the first two. Unless you are advocating some sort of stateless nirvana (sorry, I don't believe in utopias) then the alternative to the corruption you describe in your last paragraph is through "cleaning" up those international institutions, not eliminating them.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
And I'm the exception. I don't support the "US as world global dictator" camp or the "UN as world global dictator" camp. I support the "Let's not have a world global dictator" camp.

We agree on that. If the US would leave everyone alone and leave the UN, I'd be okay with that.

But here's why that's not going to happen:

Those who want the US out of the UN, by and large, want it that way because they see the UN as too restrictive on US world dictatorship. They would want the UN as long as it can be relegated to an icon of world democracy while being a tool for US dominance. When the UN doesn't agree with this "US 1st" ideal (which, because of nationalism, it never will), they want it scrapped and replaced with a more US-dictator-friendly regime.

The difference between your opinion and those who hijack it is that other will slam the UN while exploiting and abusing their power within it (like Bush & Blair).

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Sayhey
I agree with your first two paragraphs, but the last does not necessarily follow the logic of the first two. Unless you are advocating some sort of stateless nirvana (sorry, I don't believe in utopias) then the alternative to the corruption you discribe in your last paragraph is through "cleaning" up those international institutions, not eliminating them.

I'm no anarchist. All I want is this: Free trade. You know how that happens? The US eliminates every single trade barrier (well, maybe except the "don't sell nuclear weapons" clause) and ends up so successful that every other country decides they should lower their trade barriers too, just because it helps them, regardless of what the other guys do.

It doesn't even have to be the US. China could lower all their trade barriers, including the currency fixing. Then they'd be well off. Or maybe the EU could lower *their* trade barriers to the rest of the world. Or Russia! It really doesn't matter who!

Of course, this requires a government that cares about the country, not just whatever corporations pay them off, which means that at some point, we gotta fix the corporate/political collusion.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
We agree on that. If the US would leave everyone alone and leave the UN, I'd be okay with that.

But here's why that's not going to happen:

Those who want the US out of the UN, by and large, want it that way because they see the UN as too restrictive on US world dictatorship. They would want the UN as long as it can be relegated to an icon of world democracy while being a tool for US dominance. When the UN doesn't agree with this "US 1st" ideal (which, because of nationalism, it never will), they want it scrapped and replaced with a more US-dictator-friendly regime.

The difference between your opinion and those who hijack it is that other will slam the UN while exploiting and abusing their power within it (like Bush & Blair).

Exactly. I'm stuck between those nuts and the isolationists, who will just erect more trade barriers. They're anti-globalization. I am pro-globalization, but anti-world-global-government, and I don't consider the two to be contradictory. I have little company, but I'm used to it.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
If the US is neutral it won't get into very many conflicts now will it? The rest of you can play in your UN, until you become neutral as well.

So the US withdraws from support of the right of nations to non-interference and from military intervention and only deals with those nations that agree with this "neutral" stance? I think we have taken the Switzerland analogy to far. Either you support the rights embodied in the UN Charter and are willing to support them or you are willing to let the most powerful impose their rule. As it says in the old union song, "there are no neutrals there."

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Exactly. I'm stuck between those nuts and the isolationists, who will just erect more trade barriers. They're anti-globalization. I am pro-globalization, but anti-world-global-government, and I don't consider the two to be contradictory. I have little company, but I'm used to it.

I and many other folks who would like to see a more powerful UN or other global political power would be more than willing to accept your plan.

However, I don't think it's going to happen and I don't think it's the ultimate solution.

[pseudobrit]

I think the problem is that our ideals are pure (or more pure), and when there is purity there is no room for injustice.

Too many people enjoy the fruits of injustice to allow purity into the system.

So, they split our purities, our ideals, split us, and exploit the rift to bastardise one view or the other.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
I'm no anarchist. All I want is this: Free trade. You know how that happens? The US eliminates every single trade barrier (well, maybe except the "don't sell nuclear weapons" clause) and ends up so successful that every other country decides they should lower their trade barriers too, just because it helps them, regardless of what the other guys do.

It doesn't even have to be the US. China could lower all their trade barriers, including the currency fixing. Then they'd be well off. Or maybe the EU could lower *their* trade barriers to the rest of the world. Or Russia! It really doesn't matter who!

Of course, this requires a government that cares about the country, not just whatever corporations pay them off, which means that at some point, we gotta fix the corporate/political collusion.

Isn't that the goal of GATT and other international institutions you want to get rid of? I'm all for Free Trade, that however, does not mean the elimination of wars between nations. The role of the UN is still vital in the world. I think we agree Bush is not the person to reform it, but I also think you give no credit to international institutions and the positive role they can play.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Sayhey
So the US withdraws from support of the right of nations to non-interference and from military intervention and only deals with those nations that agree with this "neutral" stance? I think we have taken the Switzerland analogy to far. Either you support the rights embodied in the UN Charter and are willing to support them or you are willing to let the most powerful impose their rule. As it says in the old union song, "there are no neutrals there."

Why must the US government deal with other countries? It's called neutrality. The US government should allow Americans to trade with people around the world, not to mention travel, falling in love, and sharing cultural experiences.

I think that all countries should adopt free trade and abandon militarism. I also think that the best way to achieve this is for *one* world power to adopt free trade and abandon militarism. That world power, whoever it is, will be immensely rich: They will only need a large enough defense force to protect their own territory (assuming the US, a fraction of our current military), thus military spending will go down and free trade will bring economic gain regardless of the trade barriers of others.

Once this world power becomes a significantly better off (but still harmless) world power, it will be obvious to all the other kids on the block that neutralism and free trade are the way to go.

The eventual result would be the end of international politics as we know it. War, diplomacy: none of it. There will be no domineering powers. Why would there be?

The obvious question is: If the US is neutral, who's to stop say, China from being an aggressive bully? I think the real question is, why should the US care whether or not China is an aggressive bully? Are we really better off opposing China, or is that just a recipe for disaster? Opposing Adolf Hitler is lauded as a great decision, but what did it gain, really? More power for Stalin? And that's an improvement?

If everyone was neutral, there would be no war. If some people were neutral and other people weren't, the neutral countries would be well off and the non-neutral countries wouldn't be well off. Enough said.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Isn't that the goal of GATT and other international institutions you want to get rid of?

GATT is the inevitable result of trying to politicize the process of globalization. It's not working due to the corruption.

The basic premise of GATT and WTO is, "We'll lower our trade barriers if you lower yours." Obviously that's a gain, but if you lower your trade barriers and they don't, you still win. There's no need to come to agreement here. One world power could lower their trade barriers, declare neutrality, and make trillions in the deal.

Originally posted by Sayhey
I'm all for Free Trade, that however, does not mean the elimination of wars between nations.

That's what the neutrality is for.

But even free trade, when it's mutual, is the best guarantee of peace. You don't go to war with someone you need to trade with.

Originally posted by Sayhey
The role of the UN is still vital in the world. I think we agree Bush is not the person to reform it, but I also think you give no credit to international institutions and the positive role they can play.

I give no credit to corrupt politicians and wannabe world governments, of either the US or the UN variety.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac [QUOTE]I think that all countries should adopt free trade and abandon militarism.

I think you could get 90%+ of the world population to agree on that, but the problem is how you get there. These of course are the ideals that engendered the international institutions we have been debating about. They have a role to play in getting to that place.

It is not a inconsequential question what does the world do with an aggressive bully a la Hitler? It seems to me, your solution is to ignore that bully. I think that is an extremely historically short-sighted and unrealistic view of the world. Standing up to bullies, even if they are in your own Defense Department and White House, is the only thing that has ever stopped them. I have no interest in sitting by while would be Hitlers, Napoleons, or pick your dictator decides to carve up the world. Neutrality in the face of that is surrender.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Sayhey
I think we have taken the Switzerland analogy to far. Either you support the rights embodied in the UN Charter and are willing to support them or you are willing to let the most powerful impose their rule.

fwiw, Switzerland is a UN member state.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Sayhey
It is not a inconsequential question what does the world do with an aggressive bully a la Hitler? It seems to me, your solution is to ignore that bully. I think that is an extremely historically short-sighted and unrealistic view of the world. Standing up to bullies, even if they are in your own Defense Department and White House, is the only thing that has ever stopped them. I have no interest in sitting by while would be Hitlers, Napoleons, or pick your dictator decides to carve up the world. Neutrality in the face of that is surrender.

The problem is, it is inevitably our meddling in world affairs that creates these problems in the first place. Hitler rose because of the Allies' mistreatment of the Germans after World War I. Stalin is a better example, since he rose due to entirely internal circumstances.

Perhaps some type of "Neutral Alliance" that defended each other, but otherwise did not engage in foreign policy? By condition of the treaty?

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by zimv20
fwiw, Switzerland is a UN member state.

I'm talking more about old-school Switzerland, not the Switzerland that is making the mistake of "joining the international community" (with quotes because they were a full member before, it's just that they weren't part of the political farce that is the UN.)

[Dont Hurt Me]

sure the U.S has made mistakes but if we had not been playing world police the world would be in chaos by the likes of hitler,milosovich,saddam,crazy korean etc. U.N is pathetic when it comes to stepping up to the plate when something needs to be done.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
U.N is pathetic when it comes to stepping up to the plate when something needs to be done.

the UN is a bureaucracy, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. the purpose of a bureaucracy is to ensure that important decisions are not made too hastily.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
The problem is, it is inevitably our meddling in world affairs that creates these problems in the first place. Hitler rose because of the Allies' mistreatment of the Germans after World War I. Stalin is a better example, since he rose due to entirely internal circumstances.

Perhaps some type of "Neutral Alliance" that defended each other, but otherwise did not engage in foreign policy? By condition of the treaty?

Don't want to turn this into a discussion of Soviet history, but Stalin's rise to power was not only because of internal circumstances. The open hostility of the rest of the world to the revolution in the Soviet Union, including the invasion of Russia by foreign troops in the Civil War period, helped to foster the kind of xenophobia that led to Stalin's rise and his policies.

Your neutral alliance sounds awfully like the basis of the UN. Why you would want to limit foreign policy to this is beyond me. It doesn't jive with the kind of world you seem to want to bring about. You have a distrust of large international institutions that may be healthy but is, IMHO, way overdrawn and does not look to the positive role that the integration and understanding of peoples and nations they have also brought about.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by zimv20
the UN is a bureaucracy, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. the purpose of a bureaucracy is to ensure that important decisions are not made too hastily. or ever at all as in the U.N.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
or ever at all as in the U.N.

Well, it's a good thing the US is there to jump in and fix things right away. Like in Iraq, where we were just days away from getting hit with all Saddam's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in terrorist attacks. The UN wouldn't save us because they're only good for dragging their feet. It took the good ol' USA to go in and save ourselves.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Don't want to turn this into a discussion of Soviet history, but Stalin's rise to power was not only because of internal circumstances. The open hostility of the rest of the world to the revolution in the Soviet Union, including the invasion of Russia by foreign troops in the Civil War period, helped to foster the kind of xenophobia that led to Stalin's rise and his policies.

See, if we had just left Soviet Russia alone, we wouldn't have had Stalin :)

Originally posted by Sayhey
Your neutral alliance sounds awfully like the basis of the UN.

No. To join neutral alliance, you must declare neutrality. You must foresake foreign policy. With the UN, everyone gets to join UN, so it doesn't work.

Originally posted by Sayhey
Why you would want to limit foreign policy to this is beyond me. It doesn't jive with the kind of world you seem to want to bring about.

I want nothing short of world peace and the brotherhood of man. Unfortunately, all that governments can usually do is to hinder this.

What do we need foreign policy for anyway? War? No. Trade negotiations? Lower your own barriers: if others wish to do the same, that is a gain to you and them, if they don't, it is only a gain to you. Why else would one national government want to speak with another?

Originally posted by Sayhey
You have a distrust of large international institutions that may be healthy but is, IMHO, way overdrawn and does not look to the positive role that the integration and understanding of peoples and nations they have also brought about.

Really? Please provide an example of a government/political organization that has brought integration and understanding.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
or ever at all as in the U.N.

Whoa, if we are going to have a discussion then let's get our facts straight.

Since 1948 there have been 56 UN peacekeeping operations. Forty-three of these operations have been created by the United Nations Security Council since 1988. Thus far, close to 130 nations have contributed personnel at various times; 89 are currently providing peacekeepers. As of Aug. 31, 2003, the top contributors of military and civilian personnel to current missions were: Pakistan (4,180), Bangladesh (3,925), India (2,933), and Ghana (2,027). In 2003, there were 15 peacekeeping operations underway with a total of 36,948 personnel. The latest peace-keeping operation, a 16,000-strong force deployed to Liberia on Oct. 1, is not included in that total.

link (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0862135.html)

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Really? Please provide an example of a government/political organization that has brought integration and understanding.

The UN has prevented overt world wars, as it was designed to do. Isn't that good enough?

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
The UN has prevented overt world wars, as it was designed to do. Isn't that good enough?

Please substantiate that statement by providing one example of a situation where there would have been a world war had it not been for the helpful intervention of the UN.

[yamabushi]

Phil Of Mac- Economic interdependence(free trade) and political isolationism are mutually incompatible. International macroeconomic policies depend upon political decisions. Our current system of currency exchange is controlled to some degree mutual consent with the other major economic powers in order to stabilize the world economy as well as our own.

Also, the reality of quickly lowering all trade barriers results in complications not immediately apparent in basic economic theory. Massive unemployment in sectors that are suddenly no longer competitive can lead to social unrest. Abusive trade practices such as dumping become more common. Manipulation of financial markets becomes easier. Income disparity can become magnified. Inflation can run out of control.

Nevertheless, free trade is an ideal to work towards. It has the potential to raise standards of living in all nations that participate in such trade. These benefits do not benefit each nation equally however. The benefits also are likely to benefit a small percentage of individuals much more than everyone else. In fact, without adequate social nets, the standard of living for most people could actually fall.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
...I want nothing short of world peace and the brotherhood of man. Unfortunately, all that governments can usually do is to hinder this....

Really? Please provide an example of a government/political organization that has brought integration and understanding.

At least we agree on the goal.

I think many of the UN institutions such as WHO, UNICEF, UNESCO, ILO, and others play this role. GATT has to a limited degree played this role in the realm of trade. On a smaller scale the EU intergration plays this role in a European context. If you are looking for perfection there will be no examples that will satisfy you, but if you are looking for progress there are many examples.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Whoa, if we are going to have a discussion then let's get our facts straight.



link (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0862135.html) iam referring to the U.N. lack of movement when it comes to killer dictator's do i need to mention names?? U.N does nothing until after the fact then the peace keepers etc. why didnt they get saddam out in the first one??? the U.N didnt want that and bush sr followed suite. nothing like helping those killer dictators:eek: what did we send to N.Korea????FOOD what did they do in return???still build the bomb......:confused: where is the U.N? with out us pushing like mad they would be just happy for N.Korea's blackmail

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by yamabushi
Phil Of Mac- Economic interdependence(free trade) and political isolationism are mutually incompatible.

I'm not an isolationist, I'm a neutralist.

Originally posted by yamabushi
Also, the reality of quickly lowering all trade barriers results in complications not immediately apparent in basic economic theory. Massive unemployment in sectors that are suddenly no longer competitive can lead to social unrest. Abusive trade practices such as dumping become more common. Manipulation of financial markets becomes easier. Income disparity can become magnified. Inflation can run out of control.

So don't do it suddenly and all at once unless everyone's willing to deal with it.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Please substantiate that statement by providing one example of a situation where there would have been a world war had it not been for the helpful intervention of the UN.

Both the Suez and Cuban Missile crises were averted with UN help. At least it provided a forum where the conflicts can be aired and attempts made to resolve them on commonly agreed upon principles.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
iam referring to the U.N. lack of movement when it comes to killer dictator's do i need to mention names?? U.N does nothing until after the fact then the peace keepers etc. why didnt they get saddam out in the first one??? the U.N didnt want that and bush sr followed suite. nothing like helping those killer dictators:eek: what did we send to N.Korea????FOOD what did they do in return???still build the bomb......:confused: where is the U.N? with out us pushing like mad they would be just happy for N.Korea's blackmail

ahh, the old "i can find fault therefore the entire concept is invalid" argument.

i have a science textbook w/ a grammatical error. shall we toss out all the physical sciences because of it? or abandon newtonian physics because, though it suffices for almost all calculations, doesn't _exactly_ capture the reality of the motion?

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Both the Suez and Cuban Missile crises were averted with UN help. At least it provided a forum where the conflicts can be aired and attempts made to resolve them on commonly agreed upon principles.

It provided a forum. The floor of the UN was a good public place for Adlai Stevenson to say "Don't wait for the translation".

If anything, the UN should be an international public forum. What I object to is the UN as its own independent entity with its own tax authority, military, etc.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
iam referring to the U.N. lack of movement when it comes to killer dictator's do i need to mention names?? U.N does nothing until after the fact then the peace keepers etc. why didnt they get saddam out in the first one??? the U.N didnt want that and bush sr followed suite. nothing like helping those killer dictators:eek: what did we send to N.Korea????FOOD what did they do in return???still build the bomb......:confused: where is the U.N? with out us pushing like mad they would be just happy for N.Korea's blackmail

OK, let's talk about Iraq. The UN was the forum that provided for strict sanctions against Saddam and organized the most intrusive inspection regime relative to WMDs the world has ever seen.

Your frustration with the inability of the UN to act in the removal of dictators flies in the face of your disdain for world government. If the UN is to have the role of enforcing standards of government by force of arms then there will have to be a major change in the powers given to it by sovereign nations.

Does this venerable world institution need to be reformed? Of course! but done away with - NO! The alternative is to go back to the days before WW II. I don't think anyone can seriously think that is a better choice.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
It provided a forum. The floor of the UN was a good public place for Adlai Stevenson to say "Don't wait for the translation".

If anything, the UN should be an international public forum. What I object to is the UN as its own independent entity with its own tax authority, military, etc.

The UN has neither of these (independent tax authority or military) or anything else that the nations that are part of it decide not to give it.

[Dont Hurt Me]

not dictators---- killers,murderers.how many murdered by saddam????U.N. turns a blind eye.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
not dictators---- killers,murderers.how many murdered by saddam????U.N. turns a blind eye.

OK, for the sake of argument you choose the epitaph. Just because the UN did not authorize an invasion does not mean it turned a "blind eye." Sanctions and inspections do not make up a "blind eye" to human rights violations. Many countries of the world condemned Saddam and worked through the UN to try and bring about change. Because you think the UN should have authorized a US led invasion does not mean others ignored the problem.

[yamabushi]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
It provided a forum. The floor of the UN was a good public place for Adlai Stevenson to say "Don't wait for the translation".

If anything, the UN should be an international public forum. What I object to is the UN as its own independent entity with its own tax authority, military, etc.
I have to agree with Phil on this point. The UN holds the sovreignity of countries in high regard. In my opinion this has caused delays or complete inaction when faced with violent dictatorships and state supported terrorism.

However, I see neutrality as a cop out. In the face of difficult moral decisions it is too easy to just say "I don't want to take sides" or "I don't want to get involved". I believe it is immoral to stand by while acts of genocide, torture, or violent oppression are being carried out. It is the duty of each of us to pass judgment on others in order to guarantee basic human rights.

[Dont Hurt Me]

world police job sucks and we hate it but someone has to do it, bottom line if we dont do it no one will. chaos will follow if the U.S all of a sudden became pacifist. sorry but that is the truth.

[Phil Of Mac]

The problem is, whenever we get involved, we make enemies. The end result of this is going to be the destruction of America.

That's why we need a neutral alliance. All the small weak countries that an aggressor would pick on would join, thus giving us a good reason to defend them while not actively pissing people off. In fact, neutrality in terms of not pissing people off is a damn good way to prevent maniacal dictators from gaining power in the first place.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by yamabushi
I have to agree with Phil on this point. The UN holds the sovreignity of countries in high regard. In my opinion this has caused delays or complete inaction when faced with violent dictatorships and state supported terrorism.

However, I see neutrality as a cop out. In the face of difficult moral decisions it is too easy to just say "I don't want to take sides" or "I don't want to get involved". I believe it is immoral to stand by while acts of genocide, torture, or violent oppression are being carried out. It is the duty of each of us to pass judgment on others in order to guarantee basic human rights.

I think you just disagreed with Phil not with him. You seem to argue for a UN that has greater authority to decide to change regimes in sovereign nations. That is not the perspective Phil has been arguing. I agree that crimes of genocide, torture, etc. are not adequately dealt with in a fast enough way through the UN or other international institutions. That argues for stronger international safeguards against these crimes not the elimination of the very organizations that have a hope of bringing the world together to prevent them.

[Dont Hurt Me]

what we need are better diplomats such as Clinton was though i hate to say it.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
world police job sucks and we hate it but someone has to do it, bottom line if we dont do it no one will. chaos will follow if the U.S all of a sudden became pacifist. sorry but that is the truth.

I have not been arguing for pacifism. I am arguing for multilateral action taken under the aegis of international law instead of unilateral action taken in defiance of the law. The US has the right and, I think, the responsibility, to take action when it is agreed upon by the UN, and to lead that action when necessary, but we have no right make these decisions and to do this alone. To do so only makes us into the next in a long line of empire builders intent on imposing our will on others.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
world police job sucks and we hate it but someone has to do it, bottom line if we dont do it no one will. chaos will follow if the U.S all of a sudden became pacifist. sorry but that is the truth.

you are a binary thinker

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Sayhey
The US has the right and, I think, the responsibility, to take action when it is agreed upon by the UN, and to lead that action when necessary, but we have no right make these decisions and to do this alone. To do so only makes us into the next in a long line of empire builders intent on imposing our will on others.

When acting in our own legitimate defense, we have the right to take action unilaterally.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
When acting in our own legitimate defense, we have the right to take action unilaterally.

Agreed. The UN Charter makes that clear. It was, however not the point I was arguing. Both yamabushi and Don't Hurt Me had raised the point of the lack of an adequate UN response to concerns that do not directly threaten the legitimate defense of the US.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Agreed. The UN Charter makes that clear. It was, however not the point I was arguing. Both yamabushi and Don't Hurt Me had raised the point of the lack of an adequate UN response to concerns that do not directly threaten the legitimate defense of the US.

Unless you're coming to the legitimate defense of *someone*, you shouldn't be going to war in the first place. UN approval is kind of silly in that context.

[yamabushi]

Originally posted by Sayhey
I have not been arguing for pacifism. I am arguing for multilateral action taken under the aegis of international law instead of unilateral action taken in defiance of the law. The US has the right and, I think, the responsibility, to take action when it is agreed upon by the UN, and to lead that action when necessary, but we have no right make these decisions and to do this alone. To do so only makes us into the next in a long line of empire builders intent on imposing our will on others.
I do not believe that the UN has any stronger moral grounds to make decisions for others. Why does the opinion of the UN make an action right or wrong? I believe it does not. It merely gives an indication of what the popular world opinion is on a particular matter.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by yamabushi
I do not believe that the UN has any stronger moral grounds to make decisions for others. Why does the opinion of the UN make an action right or wrong? I believe it does not. It merely gives an indication of what the popular world opinion is on a particular matter.

The UN has the moral authority granted to it by all the member states to uphold the rights in its Charter. No single nation or group of nations is granted that right under International Law. In the best case, it is the difference between the police and vigilantes. In the worst case, it is the difference between the police and organized crime.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Unless you're coming to the legitimate defense of *someone*, you shouldn't be going to war in the first place. UN approval is kind of silly in that context.

The important distinction here is the legitimate right to self-defense that no one questions, and the legitimate use of force to defend others, including from their own government, which does need unified action through the UN.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Sayhey
The important distinction here is the legitimate right to self-defense that no one questions, and the legitimate use of force to defend others, including from their own government, which does need unified action through the UN.

What if you have a standing alliance with that "other"? What if the UN doesn't think that the "other" in question "deserves" to be defended?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
What if you have a standing alliance with that "other"? What if the UN doesn't think that the "other" in question "deserves" to be defended?

I believe the question of alliances depends on if the allied states are responding to the legitimate self-defense of an ally. In other words, support of Kuwait in the first Gulf war, yes, but support of Iraq, no. The difficult part is around internal issues such as yamabushi raised. It is especially here that UN authorization is needed, because there are conflicting rights in question that cannot be left up to individual nations to decide upon.

[yamabushi]

Originally posted by Sayhey
The UN has the moral authority granted to it by all the member states to uphold the rights in its Charter. No single nation or group of nations is granted that right under International Law. In the best case, it is the difference between the police and vigilantes. In the worst case, it is the difference between the police and organized crime.
This gives them legal authority, not moral authority. Also, their legal authority is very limilted. They can draft international law, but the individual laws are meaningless to a nation unless ratified by the government of said nation. Enforcement is even more problematic.

In other words, the UN has power over itself because it says so, but little to no control over its members unless they allow it. Thus the UN is useful for promoting cooperation but useless for governing its members. This means that the UN is not and cannot be a world government of any kind. An entirely new system would be required to replace or supplement the UN to accomplish effective international law and governance.

edit: There is no world police force. The UN merely borrows vigilantes from time to time.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by yamabushi
This gives them legal authority, not moral authority. Also, their legal authority is very limilted. They can draft international law, but the individual laws are meaningless to a nation unless ratified by the government of said nation. Enforcement is even more problematic.

In other words, the UN has power over itself because it says so, but little to no control over its members unless they allow it. Thus the UN is useful for promoting cooperation but useless for governing its members. This means that the UN is not and cannot be a world government of any kind. An entirely new system would be required to replace or supplement the UN to accomplish effective international law and governance.

I would argue it is both legal and moral authority. The legal authority is built upon the consent of the member states and the moral authority is built upon the rights granted in the Charter which came about in the aftermath of the greatest moral struggle the world has known - the struggle against fascism and militarism in WW II.

The UN is certainly not a world government and as such has severe limitations. That does not mean the role it plays is unimportant.

[yamabushi]

Originally posted by Sayhey
I would argue it is both legal and moral authority. The legal authority is built upon the consent of the member states and the moral authority is built upon the rights granted in the Charter which came about in the aftermath of the greatest moral struggle the world has known - the struggle against fascism and militarism in WW II.

Well if the UN did have moral authority it would also bear the burden of moral responsibility. This would make it responsible for its own action or inaction that results in human suffering.

The UN is certainly not a world government and as such has severe limitations. That does not mean the role it plays is unimportant.
I completely agree.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by yamabushi
Well if the UN did have moral authority it would also bear the burden of moral responsibility. This would make it responsible for its own action or inaction that results in human suffering.


I think you are right. If we take the example of Rwanda, the inaction of the UN reflects very poorly on the organization and especially on the members of the Security Council. There needs to be an understanding reached to avoid such tragedies in the future.

[Thanatoast]

everything the UN does is completely at the whim of its members, especially the security council. therefore what sayhey said above is absolutely true.

i find it ironic that the people who say the UN is too weak to enforce its whim are the same ones who refuse flat out to *give* the UN the power it needs.

really, the UN doesn't *need* any more power, it simply needs its members to pony up the the monetary and military support to do everything its members want it to do.

ex)
"we should do something about rwanda"
"well no one will give us troops or money to do it"
"oh well"

if the UN seems obstructionist sometimes, I would submit that it is only as obstructionist as our own government. congressmen and senators constantly block eachothers efforts because they think one idea or another is preferable. what the anti-UN zealots (unlike my pro-UN zealot-self) in the US don't like is being on the losing side of an argument. they can't stand that if a majority of the members of the UN think something's a bad idea then we can't do anything about it (or shouldn't). majority rule until they're no longer the majority, eh?

if Bush really wants to reform the UN he should submit a resolution amending the charter to ditch the veto. or perhaps allowing a 4-1 override. that's even better odds than our own gov't, isn't it? it'd be like having to get the senate to vote 81-19 to override. the flip side of the coin is that the minority country would have to submit to the will of the majority. if the minority country can't overcome those odds then perhaps it should rethink its position.

unfortunately no country will ever vote to give itself less power. and as long as nations choose to ignore the mandates (not laws!) of the UN (including certain un-named superpowers) then the UN will not have the "moral" authoriy it needs to deal with the true baddies.

members here have decried the fact that the UN has not responded to certain humanitarian crises. what if the UN was given that power and will, and it decided that holding prisoners in Guantanamo without access to council and without pressing charges was a humanitarian violation. would those members support the UN in "liberating" those prisoners?

international law is a *huge* gray area, where the answer is damn near always "depends". thanks in no small part to countries that don't want to make the laws black and white enough to be used against them or their interests.

i doubt that complete neutrality is even possible, much less feasible. even the swiss were not always completely neutral. or how about this, they were neutral at the time of WWII and so they kept stolen nazi deposits in their banks. so what if that was blood money, they're neutral, right? hopefully you see what i mean.

whew. wasn't planning to type that much. hopefully it's mostly sensical.

[Sayhey]

Made a lot of sense to me.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
i doubt that complete neutrality is even possible, much less feasible. even the swiss were not always completely neutral. or how about this, they were neutral at the time of WWII and so they kept stolen nazi deposits in their banks. so what if that was blood money, they're neutral, right? hopefully you see what i mean.

The Swiss government was neutral. The Swiss banks did business with both sides.

Businesses inside your country can do business with whoever they want, neutrality or not. No one considers it part of the US foreign policy to sell Coca-Cola to Japanese teenagers, it just happens.

[Inu]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
The Swiss government was neutral. The Swiss banks did business with both sides.


Yeah, and we got our Asses handed over to us for letting the banks act that way, remember.

Remember the Hypocritical All-Out Onlaught under Ed Fagan on behalf of the poor Jewish people with all their Swiss stolen Money?

Well, it wouldnt have such a big thing, you know. If you think there is lost money somewhere from your ancestors, you just have to ask. really. But then, there is much more money for a lawyer to make in just blaming them all. Dont mind the bad prestige...

Apparently, he tries it again on behalf of the south-african victims of the apartheid. Never mind their current president is against it, because it could scare away investors (wich they sorely need).

The swiss neutrality seems to have its ups and downs, you see. No one wants to invade us, all want to get us because we are :)

[Thanatoast]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
No one considers it part of the US foreign policy to sell Coca-Cola to Japanese teenagers, it just happens.
But they might cosnider it part of foreign policy to sell weapons to the Japanese military, if they were fighting with them. Or even doing business with Japanese firms. Your policy may be neutral in *your* eyes, but to them you funding the efforts of the enemy, and therefor you're fighting against them. Now your "neutral" policy has gotten you a war. What do you do? You could obviously defend yourself (by your self-protection forces), but what if having a neutral meeting ground to work out issues before hand had obviated the need for the conflict in the first place?

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
But they might cosnider it part of foreign policy to sell weapons to the Japanese military, if they were fighting with them. Or even doing business with Japanese firms. Your policy may be neutral in *your* eyes, but to them you funding the efforts of the enemy, and therefor you're fighting against them. Now your "neutral" policy has gotten you a war. What do you do? You could obviously defend yourself (by your self-protection forces), but what if having a neutral meeting ground to work out issues before hand had obviated the need for the conflict in the first place?

I'm not against having the UN as a forum and international universal embassy, but at that point you don't need a Security Council and you don't need to have them vote.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
I'm not against having the UN as a forum and international universal embassy, but at that point you don't need a Security Council and you don't need to have them vote.

And what would you call such a forum... something original and catchy...

perhaps -- ah! I've got it!

A "league of nations"

that has a nice ring to it, no?

[Inu]

"The league of extraordinary nations"! :p

Oh, i am for a change in the existing UN. The Veto Nonsense has blocked too much things in the past.

But i am against disassembling the UN and build a new one without all the states that disagree with the US atm (Rogue States, Axis of Evil or just plain "Free for All Bombing Target States"). Not only for the unfairness that would conclude, but also because the chaos that might ensue.

[yamabushi]

The world is chaotic now. It would be much more so if the U.S. had not acccepted the duty as a superpower to bring stability to the world.

[Inu]

Originally posted by yamabushi
The world is chaotic now. It would be much more so if the U.S. had not acccepted the duty as a superpower to bring stability to the world.

It might be a bit less chaotic if someone was less trigger happy and had waited another few months. And it might be a bit more united.

[yamabushi]

Originally posted by Inu
It might be a bit less chaotic if someone was less trigger happy and had waited another few months. And it might be a bit more united.
Which - united Nazis or Soviets? Militant Islam? :rolleyes:

[Inu]

Originally posted by yamabushi
Which - united Nazis or Soviets? Militant Islam? :rolleyes:

Look, he made a joke. U-nited N-azis. Cute. :mad:

I meant your (supposedly your from US) imbecile crapshot president.
Of course, if the Islamic forces would roll over and play dead and let you do as you please it might be a more peaceful world. But lets be realistic here and say it wont happen any sooner as, for example Israel rolls over and does the same thing. Wich will never happen too.

Just a few Months more, and either half the world would have helped you oust Saddam, or it would have proofed that he wasnt a direct problem at all (dont you dare to call upon the "Poor oppressed Iraqis"-Tantrum again. That never was the issue, and you know it)

[yamabushi]

Okay...you obviously didn't get it at all. I was not referring to the UN in that last statement and I think you should avoid putting words into other peoples mouths. I was referring to the military actions in the past that you might be possibly be more supportive or appreciative. Such as stopping Nazis from keeping Europe and spreading further. Or how about airlifting food and supplies to Berlin when the Soviets surrounded it and blocked transport by land. Or there was the case of placing a huge amount of forces in Europe to discourage the Soviets from continuing their westward expansion. Or how about stopping terrorists in Afganistan from continuing to train to attack targets in Europe and the U.S.?

Sure - U.S. presidents have engaged in conflicts that were probably best left alone. Why bother even trying to stop the Chinese from expanding their military power in Asia? This is the kind of attitude that has made it difficult and controversial to support just causes such as a free Tibet or Taiwan. The UN ignored both of those nations. The US wound up grudgingly siding with the Chinese because of their seat on the security council and military power.

I don't like our current President, but the war in Iraq should have happened years ago. Amnesty International cited Iraq as the most brutal and oppressive regime in the world. That alone should be enough to justify a war. How about the numerous wars in Africa where genocide is common? Why not speak out against the dictators and more than that - act against them? The U.S. went to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties while Saddam Hussein went to extraordinary lengths to torture and murder the same people. Face it - diplomacy failed. Diplomacy cost the lives of thousands of Iraqis. Yes, our administration probably went into the war for the wrong reasons. If they had gone in for the right reasons the U.S. would have ignored the U.N. sooner and attacked ten years ago.

If you don't like President Bush, fine - don't. I don't like him either. Don't mistake him for the U.S., though. We have a few hundred million other people in this country as well.

[Inu]

Damn. You cant imagine how glad i am i got you wrong there :)

But i have to say that ****ty living conditions and oppressive dictators where never a reason to invade a country. Especially not after several other reasons have been named and all have proven wrong.
If ****ty living conditions where a reason to invade, you would have to put half the US people under arms and invade at least 1/3 of the world.

I just do not see the reason for going unilateral all of a sudden, and i could never approve it.

[yamabushi]

Yes, unilateral action is far from ideal, and it really shouldn't be the job of the U.S. That is why I believe that some sort of supranational police force for nations should be formed. Institutional oppression, torture and murder has been ignored because it is supposedly not justification for war. I cannot accept this view because I feel that it is our moral responsibility to look out for the very basic rights of other human beings, regardless of where they happen to live.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by yamabushi
Okay...you obviously didn't get it at all. I was not referring to the UN in that last statement and I think you should avoid putting words into other peoples mouths. I was referring to the military actions in the past that you might be possibly be more supportive or appreciative.

Those were in the past. I think we're talking about current situations.

Besides, the US didn't win WWII or the Cold War alone, and we never could have without all of our allies. The Russians would have crushed the Nazis in time (let's not forget who got to Berlin first). The Soviets would have collapsed without our challenges in time. We may have accelerated the demise of both systems, but we were not the main force behind their failure.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
What if the UN doesn't think that the "other" in question "deserves" to be defended?

What if monkeys come flying out of my a**.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by mcrain
What if monkeys come flying out of my a**.

Are you suggesting that the UN never fails to do anything under conditions of genocide and brutality?

One word: Rwanda.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Are you suggesting that the UN never fails to do anything under conditions of genocide and brutality?

One word: Rwanda.

un.org is chock full of information about the constructive and helpful things the UN _has_ done.

if the UN didn't live up to your expectations on one or two things, forgive me if i don't suddenly decide the whole organization is a waste of time.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by zimv20
un.org is chock full of information about the constructive and helpful things the UN _has_ done.

Indeed.

And whitehouse.gov is chock full of information about the constructive and helpful things that President Bush has done.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Indeed.

And whitehouse.gov is chock full of information about the constructive and helpful things that President Bush has done.

:-)

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Indeed.

And whitehouse.gov is chock full of information about the constructive and helpful things that President Bush has done.

Therefore it is logical to assume everything the UN claims it has done is false? Phil, you know better than this silly syllogism.

Let's deal with specifics. Explain how the 56 peacekeeping missions I listed earlier were a waste of time. Or how the agencies such a WHO, UNICEF, etc. do no good. If you want to get rid of the UN then please explain how these and its myriad of other functions are going to be performed in a world without the organization.

[yamabushi]

All of the peacekeeping missions are performed with troops and equipment borrowed form member nations who then perform these military actions mostly independent of the UN. US peacekeeping troops in the balkans that were lent to the UN just painted their Hummers blue and kept doing the same job. The new paint job did receive a positive response from the locals who reduced the number of rocks that they threw at those vehicles.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Therefore it is logical to assume everything the UN claims it has done is false? Phil, you know better than this silly syllogism.

No. It is logical to assume that un.org is a biased and unreliable source of information about the UN.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Let's deal with specifics. Explain how the 56 peacekeeping missions I listed earlier were a waste of time.

Has one UN peacekeeping mission ever permanently ended a conflict? Asking me to prove that they were *not* a success is asking me to prove a negative.

Originally posted by Sayhey
Or how the agencies such a WHO, UNICEF, etc. do no good.

Again, you're asking me to prove a negative. It's up to you to show us how agencies like WHO and UNICEF do good.

[Sayhey]

Actually no, it is your idea to eliminate the UN, so it is up to you to prove the validity of the idea. That includes what should be done to accomplish the same things that the UN does now. Or you can take the position that such things as peacekeeping, dealing with refugees, vaccination of children, feeding the starving, etc. are not needed, but I think you are too smart for that. If necessary I can link you to many specific activities that the UN does, but you can look it up on the UN site. What you have to show is how the world would be better without the UN.

[Dont Hurt Me]

there just needs to be a better forum for expressing differences and working together for the greater good of mankind and for all to prosper. U.N. in its current form is lacking at best.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Has one UN peacekeeping mission ever permanently ended a conflict? Asking me to prove that they were *not* a success is asking me to prove a negative.

Permanently? I'm not sure how anyone can give you that proof. Have they worked at what they set out to do? Well, 41 of the 56 are done, so to some degree they were successful.

edit: spelling

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Actually no, it is your idea to eliminate the UN, so it is up to you to prove the validity of the idea.

When did I ever say the UN should be eliminated? All I said was that the US should withdraw from the UN.

In any case, you're the one making the point that the UN is doing something useful. It's your job to prove your point. You can't just make a point and let it stand without backing while at the same time asking me to disprove it. This is a relatively universally accepted rule.

I could, for instance, state that the UN is the Antichrist, but I would have to prove that. I couldn't say, "The UN is the Antichrist, and if you disagree, it's up to you to disprove me."

If you're not even going to abide by the rules of civil discussion, it's a waste of time for all of us to be here.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
When did I ever say the UN should be eliminated? All I said was that the US should withdraw from the UN.

In any case, you're the one making the point that the UN is doing something useful. It's your job to prove your point. You can't just make a point and let it stand without backing while at the same time asking me to disprove it. This is a relatively universally accepted rule.

I could, for instance, state that the UN is the Antichrist, but I would have to prove that. I couldn't say, "The UN is the Antichrist, and if you disagree, it's up to you to disprove me."

If you're not even going to abide by the rules of civil discussion, it's a waste of time for all of us to be here.

Awfully huffy aren't we now, Phil! Thanks for educating me on the "rules of civil discussion."

I took your statement that,

"The purpose of the veto is so that the world's powers have veto power. The US is a world power. If we give up our veto, then China, Russia, the UK, and France ought to too.

I say, veto the UN!"

to mean you wanted to get rid of the UN. If I'm wrong and you only want the US to leave then my apologies. I still don't see how the US leaving the UN will help deal with all the things the UN does, but then you have yet to educate me on that.

Now, do I have to pull up every UN project and give you a link to them or do you concede that the UN does some good in this crazy world?

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Awfully huffy aren't we now, Phil! Thanks for educating me on the "rules of civil discussion."

If you're going to be condescending I'm not wasting my time with you anymore. You've done a masterful job of completely missing the point of what I had to say.

I don't see how I could make it any more clear, but I'll say it again: If you make a point, it is up to you to prove it or to give it backing. It is not to be accepted by default unless your opponent disproves it. This is called "asking him to prove a negative". The reason for this is that if it weren't for this rule, everyone would have to waste their time trying to disprove ridiculous assertions that have no backing.

I hope you can understand that.

Originally posted by Sayhey
I took your statement that,

"The purpose of the veto is so that the world's powers have veto power. The US is a world power. If we give up our veto, then China, Russia, the UK, and France ought to too.

I say, veto the UN!"

to mean you wanted to get rid of the UN. If I'm wrong and you only want the US to leave then my apologies.

My apologies for my lack of clarity.

Originally posted by Sayhey
I still don't see how the US leaving the UN will help deal with all the things the UN does, but then you have yet to educate me on that.

Did I ever claim it would?

Originally posted by Sayhey
Now, do I have to pull up every UN project and give you a link to them or do you concede that the UN does some good in this crazy world?

As I've said before, one successful UN mission would be sufficient.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
If you make a point, it is up to you to prove it or to give it backing. It is not to be accepted by default unless your opponent disproves it. This is called "asking him to prove a negative". The reason for this is that if it weren't for this rule, everyone would have to waste their time trying to disprove ridiculous assertions that have no backing.


You mean like asking someone to prove they didn't posses something? Like say, WMD's?:p

(Not aimed at you, Phil. A general thought, thrown out to the community at large.)

[yamabushi]

No, I'm* right! Shut up you clods! ;)

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by mactastic
You mean like asking someone to prove they didn't posses something? Like say, WMD's?:p

(Not aimed at you, Phil. A general thought, thrown out to the community at large.)

You make an excellent point, however :)

[Sayhey]

Phil, I was only returning the tone for tone. I know full well what "proving a negative" means and don't need you to educate me on the subject. I've never asked you to do such a thing but rather I've asked you to support your proposition numerous times, but you have failed to do so while I have given you example after example of UN activities.

I first gave you examples of specific crises in which the Security Council debates played an important role (Suez and Cuban missile crises.) I then gave you specific agencies of the UN and the positive role they play in the world (WHO, UNICEF, ILO, etc.) I have cited the 56 peacekeeping missions the UN has participated in since its founding. I have grudgingly offered to give you instances of each agency activities. All of this while you have yet to give me any example of how we would be better off without the UN or at least now that I understand your position better, without the US participation in the UN. I would ask you to reevaluate your understanding of the "civilized rules of debate."

You have now asked for a specific example of a successful UN mission, I will pick one out of many - the mission to East Timor. Is the region better for the UN involvement - you betcha! Is it perfect - of course not! Now will you kindly answer my question. How will the world be a better place by the US withdrawing from the UN?

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Phil, I was only returning the tone for tone. I know full well what "proving a negative" means and don't need you to educate me on the subject. I've never asked you to do such a thing

You said, and I quote, "Explain how the 56 peacekeeping missions I listed earlier were a waste of time. Or how the agencies such a WHO, UNICEF, etc. do no good."

Originally posted by Sayhey
I first gave you examples of specific crises in which the Security Council debates played an important role (Suez and Cuban missile crises.)

And I agreed that an international forum was necessary and essential. This does not equate to the UN as an independent force. In fact, the UN has never been an independent force, it has only been a vehicle for the world powers to do various things.

Originally posted by Sayhey
I then gave you specific agencies of the UN and the positive role they play in the world (WHO, UNICEF, ILO, etc.)

Without showing how they have accomplished anything of value.

Originally posted by Sayhey
I have cited the 56 peacekeeping missions the UN has participated in since its founding.

Without explaining whether or not any of them were successful.

Originally posted by Sayhey
All of this while you have yet to give me any example of how we would be better off without the UN or at least now that I understand your position better, without the US participation in the UN. I would ask you to reevaluate your understanding of the "civilized rules of debate."

My position as of now is that there is a need for an international forum, but that the UN is not the optimal vehicle for this.

Originally posted by Sayhey
You have now asked for a specific example of a successful UN mission, I will pick one out of many - the mission to East Timor. Is the region better for the UN involvement - you betcha! Is it perfect - of course not!

You're going to have to give me more detail than that. What was the mission to East Timor, what was the situation before the UN got involved, and what is the situation now?

Originally posted by Sayhey
Now will you kindly answer my question. How will the world be a better place by the US withdrawing from the UN?

The world would be a better place due to the neutrality of the United States. That neutrality would also involve withdrawal from the UN.

[yamabushi]

Phil- You have mentioned before this idea of neutrality but I still don't see how it is any different from isolationism. Can you tell me how they differ in your view?

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by yamabushi
Phil- You have mentioned before this idea of neutrality but I still don't see how it is any different from isolationism. Can you tell me how they differ in your view?

Isolationism involves cutting off trade and immigration. Neutrality allows trade and immigration. I would prefer free trade and immigration.

[yamabushi]

By that definition, the U.S. was fairly neutral just prior to WWI.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by yamabushi
By that definition, the U.S. was fairly neutral just prior to WWI.

Not at all. We were shipping arms and otherwise supporting the British, or at least, our government was. We were hardly neutral.

The mix of neutrality with the lack thereof is like the mix of food with poison. It doesn't work if there's the slightest bit of contaminant.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
You said, and I quote, "Explain how the 56 peacekeeping missions I listed earlier were a waste of time. Or how the agencies such a WHO, UNICEF, etc. do no good."

Phil, if I asked you to prove God doesn't exist that would be proving a negative. To ask you to say how UN peacekeeping is a waste of time is not proving a negative. It asks for your opinion on why these many missions were not worthy of support. The same can be said of the agencies. Just show how you think they are ineffective or a waste of time. Neither requests fall under the definition of proving a negative.

And I agreed that an international forum was necessary and essential. This does not equate to the UN as an independent force. In fact, the UN has never been an independent force, it has only been a vehicle for the world powers to do various things.

I never said it was an independent force.

Without showing how they have accomplished anything of value.

Do you know nothing of the activities of these institutions? I have listed such things a dealing with refugees in times of crisis, feeding the starving of the many nations, setting health standards for the world and helping raise the conditions of peoples health in many areas of the world, etc. Do I really have to go through and list every activity they have done?

Without explaining whether or not any of them were successful.

Did you read the link? Do you know the history of any of these conflicts? I know you must. Did the UN play a positive role in the conflict in Bosnia? I think they have. In Macedonia? Again I think they have.

My position as of now is that there is a need for an international forum, but that the UN is not the optimal vehicle for this.

If you have suggestions on how to turn the UN into the "optimal vehicle" then that would be helpful. Phil, if you have a point of view then it is not only important to talk of what you think should be, but also how it can be accomplished.

You're going to have to give me more detail than that. What was the mission to East Timor, what was the situation before the UN got involved, and what is the situation now?

East Timor was once a Portuguese colony that after the revolution in Portugal won its independence. That was unacceptable to the rulers of Indonesia and they invaded and took control of the section of the island (West Timor is part of Indonesia.) After worldwide condemnation, the massacre of thousands, and a ongoing war to win its independence, the UN finally brokered a peace and elections and now has a peace keeping mission there in. It is a much better situation.

The world would be a better place due to the neutrality of the United States. That neutrality would also involve withdrawal from the UN.

To the first point, I would agree if by neutrality you mean the US not invading other nations. The second does not logically follow from the other. The US does not enter into any alliance or mandate the use of force by its membership in the UN.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Phil, if I asked you to prove God doesn't exist that would be proving a negative. To ask you to say how UN peacekeeping is a waste of time is not proving a negative. It asks for your opinion on why these many missions were not worthy of support. The same can be said of the agencies. Just show how you think they are ineffective or a waste of time. Neither requests fall under the definition of proving a negative.

You asked me to show how they do no good. That is proving a negative. You assert that they do good, you must prove that.

Originally posted by Sayhey
I never said it was an independent force.

I never accused you of doing so.

Originally posted by Sayhey
Do you know nothing of the activities of these institutions? I have listed such things a dealing with refugees in times of crisis, feeding the starving of the many nations, setting health standards for the world and helping raise the conditions of peoples health in many areas of the world, etc. Do I really have to go through and list every activity they have done?

One or two would be sufficient, as I have stated multiple times. I will also assert that other, private organizations can and have done many of the same things, without any of the nasty political baggage of the UN.

Originally posted by Sayhey
If you have suggestions on how to turn the UN into the "optimal vehicle" then that would be helpful. Phil, if you have a point of view then it is not only important to talk of what you think should be, but also how it can be accomplished.

I have made my suggestions many times before in this thread. I see no reason to repeat myself.

Originally posted by Sayhey
East Timor was once a Portuguese colony that after the revolution in Portugal won its independence. That was unacceptable to the rulers of Indonesia and they invaded and took control of the section of the island (West Timor is part of Indonesia.) After worldwide condemnation, the massacre of thousands, and a ongoing war to win its independence, the UN finally brokered a peace and elections and now has a peace keeping mission there in. It is a much better situation.

You have backed your point and educated us all at the same time. Thank you.

Originally posted by Sayhey
To the first point, I would agree if by neutrality you mean the US not invading other nations. The second does not logically follow from the other. The US does not enter into any alliance or mandate the use of force by its membership in the UN.

No, but it does fund the UN's use of force.

By neutrality I mean the United States government's withdrawal from the realm of international politics. To be neutral, the US government must cease to fund, aid, invade, undermine, spy on, bomb, or otherwise interact with anyone unless and until they aggress upon the United States. Outstanding conflicts, such as the US/al Qaeda conflict, that resulted from our lack of neutrality will be resolved by standing down to defense only, and ceasing all offensive action against the enemy. US neutrality would end troop deployments in the Middle East, the occupation of Iraq, and funding of the Israelis. As a result, al Qaeda's grievances against us will be resolved, not because we stood down in the face of terrorism, but because it was the right thing to do. And as a bonus, we'll have no more terrorism.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
You asked me to show how they do no good. That is proving a negative. You assert that they do good, you must prove that.

Phil, we a going nowhere with this aspect of the argument. I can only recommend a very good book by Carl Sagan called The Demon-Haunted World in which he describes all kinds of debating techniques including asking your opponent to "prove a negative." My understanding of this and yours are obviously very different. The inclusion of the world "no" does not make a statement fall into this category.


I never accused you of doing so.

Great we agree.



One or two would be sufficient, as I have stated multiple times. I will also assert that other, private organizations can and have done many of the same things, without any of the nasty political baggage of the UN.

I think you missed the point. My answer gives numerous examples of what these organizations do. If you want a specific example take the work of the UNHCR among Afghani refugees. You could look at Kosovo as well it you like. All in all there are 20.5 million refugees in the world and UNHCR is one of the few organizations that feed, house, and try and find countries to take such people in.

WHO is an organization that tries to get health care information on a whole host of diseases and conditions out to people who would have little chance of such help otherwise.

If you want to find out more go to the UN site at:

http://www.un.org/aboutun/chart.html

and click on any of the UN organizations and much more information will be available.

I have made my suggestions many times before in this thread. I see no reason to repeat myself.

Your suggestions boil down to the US leaving the UN and being neutral. They say nothing about how to deal with all the problems the UN is involved in.



You have backed your point and educated us all at the same time. Thank you.

Thank you.



No, but it does fund the UN's use of force.

By neutrality I mean the United States government's withdrawal from the realm of international politics. To be neutral, the US government must cease to fund, aid, invade, undermine, spy on, bomb, or otherwise interact with anyone unless and until they aggress upon the United States. Outstanding conflicts, such as the US/al Qaeda conflict, that resulted from our lack of neutrality will be resolved by standing down to defense only, and ceasing all offensive action against the enemy. US neutrality would end troop deployments in the Middle East, the occupation of Iraq, and funding of the Israelis. As a result, al Qaeda's grievances against us will be resolved, not because we stood down in the face of terrorism, but because it was the right thing to do. And as a bonus, we'll have no more terrorism.

While I sympathize with many of the things you wish the US to cease doing, I think the withdrawal of the US from international politics is highly unrealistic. I will continue to work towards some of these same goals without the expectation that it will take what I see as an isolationist retreat to do so.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Your suggestions boil down to the US leaving the UN and being neutral. They say nothing about how to deal with all the problems the UN is involved in.

Obviously you missed the whole "neutral alliance" thing.

Originally posted by Sayhey
While I sympathize with many of the things you wish the US to cease doing, I think the withdrawal of the US from international politics is highly unrealistic.

World peace and brotherhood among men are also highly unrealistic. That doesn't mean they aren't a good idea.

[yamabushi]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Not at all. We were shipping arms and otherwise supporting the British, or at least, our government was. We were hardly neutral.

The mix of neutrality with the lack thereof is like the mix of food with poison. It doesn't work if there's the slightest bit of contaminant.

I said "prior to the war" so arms shipments are irrelevant unless you do not wish to have real free trade. Besides, the reality of both international politics and trade makes complete neutrality impossible. Simply by enaging in dialogue or trade with any other country you affect the entire system, with countries realizing varying degrees of either beneficial or detrimental effects.

edit:
A "neutral alliance" is an oxymoron since by declaring an alliance you are by definition including and excluding certain groups. Your intentions towards these various groups does not define your relationship with them, since this will change over time. Your inclusion or exculsion of a country from a military alliance will have a profound influence on the nature of your relationship.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Obviously you missed the whole "neutral alliance" thing.



World peace and brotherhood among men are also highly unrealistic. That doesn't mean they aren't a good idea.

Did not mean to give your "neutral alliance" proposal short shrift. It is in my opinion, highly utopian. Your proposal assumes that it is in the interest of nations to rely on free trade to eliminate the causes of conflicts between nations. However, the exploitation of less powerful and less developed nations by more developed nations would continue to go on in a world of completely free trade. The transformation of countries like Cuba, Nicaragua, Peru, etc. into agricultural factories of sugar, bananas, coffee, etc. would go on just as it has in the past. This does not mean to me a recipe for World peace. This proposal also does not deal with the many problems other than self-defense that the UN deals with.

Yes, World peace and brotherhood are wonderful goals. However, it takes some realism in the tackling the problems of today to get there.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by yamabushi
I said "prior to the war" so arms shipments are irrelevant unless you do not wish to have real free trade.

Okay, prior to the war entirely, you are correct. Prior to the American entry to the war, the US government was arming the British.

Originally posted by yamabushi
Besides, the reality of both international politics and trade makes complete neutrality impossible. Simply by enaging in dialogue or trade with any other country you affect the entire system, with countries realizing varying degrees of either beneficial or detrimental effects.

Countries don't trade, human beings do.

Originally posted by yamabushi
edit:
A "neutral alliance" is an oxymoron since by declaring an alliance you are by definition including and excluding certain groups. Your intentions towards these various groups does not define your relationship with them, since this will change over time. Your inclusion or exculsion of a country from a military alliance will have a profound influence on the nature of your relationship.

The alliance itself is neutral to affairs outside the alliance. Inside the alliance, the parties involved only do something when one member of the alliance is attacked.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
The alliance itself is neutral to affairs outside the alliance. Inside the alliance, the parties involved only do something when one member of the alliance is attacked.

Can you please define "attacked"? Does it mean by launching an assault on the territory or "just" affecting "vital" interests? What are vital interests? Who's defining them? What if some members of the alliance disagree on what an attack is or not? How do you deal with genocide and poor health conditions at other places of the world that are not part of the alliance?

Sorry, but your approach is just not feasible! It sounds very much like: "WE would be better of, so screw the rest of the world! Too bad the people dying are not living in one of the countries of the alliance. Too bad for them, but not my fault."

Discussion also means to evaluate your own position, otherwise it is just an exchange of statements with no interest to find a common ground. And that is (as you already said yourself) really a waste of time...

groovebuster

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by groovebuster
Can you please define "attacked"? Does it mean by launching an assault on the territory or "just" affecting "vital" interests? What are vital interests? Who's defining them?

I mean initiation of physical force against the countries in question, by which I mean, persons whom the country in question is obligated to support.

Originally posted by groovebuster
What if some members of the alliance disagree on what an attack is or not?

It would be clearly defined in the treaty.

Originally posted by groovebuster
How do you deal with genocide and poor health conditions at other places of the world that are not part of the alliance?

We wouldn't. As for poor health conditions, why is that an issue for foreign governments to deal with?

Originally posted by groovebuster
Sorry, but your approach is just not feasible! It sounds very much like: "WE would be better of, so screw the rest of the world! Too bad the people dying are not living in one of the countries of the alliance. Too bad for them, but not my fault."

We could band together and form ad hoc armies to stop them as private citizens of the world. I'll bring the napalm.

[groovebuster]

It's funny... your ideals sound like a modern approach to communism! :D

But really, I think to "not care" if somewhere else people are dying of reasons like starvation, genocide or poor health conditions is very problematic regarding the moral standing...

How should a world-wide "private task force" take care of problems like that? After all it needs military (infra-)structures, training and funding to be efficient.

groovebuster

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by groovebuster
It's funny... your ideals sound like a modern approach to communism! :D

Except they involve free trade and limited government. In fact, they're the exact opposite of communism.

Originally posted by groovebuster
But really, I think to "not care" if somewhere else people are dying of reasons like starvation, genocide or poor health conditions is very problematic regarding the moral standing...

There's a difference between not caring and not thinking something is part of government's role in society. The leading cause of death throughout modern history has been out-of-control governments outstepping their legitimate roles. Governments should be restricted for that very reason, not because we don't care about starvation, genocide, or poor health conditions, but because we do care. Private aid organizations like the Red Cross and Red Crescent already provide aid to starving people abroad as well as taking care of poor health conditions. The root of the problem lies in eliminating the central cause, and in most of these cases, the central cause is some out-of-control military dictatorship. The solution is not to become an out-of-control military dictatorship ourselves. The solution is to spread the seeds of revolution.

Originally posted by groovebuster
How should a world-wide "private task force" take care of problems like that? After all it needs military (infra-)structures, training and funding to be efficient.

Guerrilla warfare. We just need to be a bunch of libertarian Che Guevaras here.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Guerrilla warfare. We just need to be a bunch of libertarian Che Guevaras here.

A libertarian communist! And I thought the kid I met who was a Nazi and a latino was the most conflicted person I had ever met.

Sayhey, "The Demon Haunted World" is an excellent book, I have that one in my library myself. Sagan is articulate, intelligent, and approachable. I reccomend the book to anyone who appreciates critical thought and the debate process.

[Phil Of Mac]

I'm not communist, I only admire their ability to perform guerilla warfare!

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by mactastic
A libertarian communist! And I thought the kid I met who was a Nazi and a latino was the most conflicted person I had ever met.

Sayhey, "The Demon Haunted World" is an excellent book, I have that one in my library myself. Sagan is articulate, intelligent, and approachable. I reccomend the book to anyone who appreciates critical thought and the debate process.

Mactastic, glad you liked it. Sagan has always been someone I admired for his ability to cut through the crap and present tough subjects in ways that even I can understand. I think every high school senior or college freshman/sophomore should have this book as part of a required course in critical thinking. We wouldn't have so many people cooing about crop circles and tracing government conspiracies to hide little green men if they did.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Except they involve free trade and limited government. In fact, they're the exact opposite of communism.

And in fact that is not true my young Jedi. If you look at the goals behind communism and anarchism, freedom and wealth for everybody, you would realize that they both (communism is just a stage of evolution before anarchism) are based on the same presumptions as your utopia:

1. The Human individual is basically good
2. Humans can learn to act more moral and will do automatically (see 1).
3. Everything is for the best of all people
4. What is good for the individual is good for the masses.

Unfortunately (especially in North America :rolleyes: ) a lot of people don't have a clue what they are talking about, when they use the word communism. For them it is a political system, an evil state of mind. But in fact it is an idea how all the people could live together in peace, without being supressed by dictators, political systems or exploited by other individuals. It's the same mistake as with the church. In the name of the catholic church horrible things were done. But is it OK then to say that "christians" in general are an evil breed?

I guess you get what I want to say... So communism isn't that far from what you want. You proclaim an anarchism (or communism) for trading. But you know why communism never worked out and always turned into a dictatorship? I'll leave it to yourself to find the answer...

groovebuster

[Sayhey]

If you use Marx and Engels for your definition, then Communism is the second stage of the Communist revolution. In this stage the State is supposed to have "withered away" and society is governed by the principle of "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." This 19th century utopian idea has never been claimed to have been reached by any so-called Communist country. They all were stuck in the first stage of Socialism (and messing it up pretty badly.)

Oh, and by the way all of these states have been big proponents of free trade.

[Phil Of Mac]

1. I'm not anarchist.
2. Communism is based on people abandoning self-interest. Capitalism is based on people using self-interest for mutual gain. It's more realistic because humans are by nature self-interested.
3. Either is far from the status quo.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
1. I'm not anarchist.
2. Communism is based on people abandoning self-interest. Capitalism is based on people using self-interest for mutual gain. It's more realistic because humans are by nature self-interested.
3. Either is far from the status quo.

1. I would describe your views, as I read them, as more of a kind of utopian libertarianism.

2. No, Communism is based on the transformation of the individual to recognize their self-interest lies in the success of others. It is only possible, according to many Marxists, with the development of the "New Man." One that would live in a society of abundance based on "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." I don't think this vision is anymore than a 19th century utopian dream, but if we are trying to look to what the proponents of each system states as their goals we might as well get it straight.

3. If by this you mean that neither the Marxist vision of a communist society corresponds to the reality of the societies that have claimed to be building a class free society nor is your vision of minimal government in a laissez faire capitalist society corresponding to the present modern capitalist state, then we agree.

[groovebuster]

Sayhey, thanks for putting in words what was on my mind. In discussions like this I realize again how limited my english is and that I am not used to discuss subjects like that in a foreign language...

groovebuster

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by groovebuster
Sayhey, thanks for putting in words what was on my mind. In discussions like this I realize again how limited my english is and that I am not used to discuss subjects like that in a foreign language...

groovebuster

groovebuster, not a problem. Your english is quite good, by the way. I'm envious of anyone who can attempt to have any kind of interaction in a language not their own, beyond "which way to the airport, please?" or "where is the nearest bathroom, please?" My own German skills are almost nonexistent (limited to middle school classes many, many years ago.) So you are far ahead of me.