U.S. immune to Security Council

Discussion in 'Community' started by drastik, Jul 3, 2002.

  1. drastik macrumors 6502a

    drastik

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2002
    Location:
    Nashvegas
    #1
    HEy y'all what does everybosy think about the vurrent U.S. refusal to be subject to the UN Security Council and the threat from Rumsfield that the US will not participate in further PEacekeeping duties if something is not done. Is this a fair response to a threat on U.S. sovergnty, or is it another sign of the administratins intent to take a unilateral go-it-alone stance on world issues?
     
  2. eyelikeart Moderator emeritus

    eyelikeart

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Location:
    Metairie, LA
    #2
    ha ha ha....and yet...another political discussion thread...:D

    no worries from me....like I said before....politics isn't my strongest point...so I'll bid u farewell now ;)
     
  3. job macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #3
    I don't think the US should be subservient to anyone or any governing body. Yes, we may have obligations to the international community, however I do not think it is right that the US be subject to the Security Council. You really want them to be running the United States? The ICC in particular would be detrimental to US sovereignty. (See my other thread for a very interesting link.) What gives them the right to preside over us?

    hitman
     
  4. groovebuster macrumors 65816

    groovebuster

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Location:
    3rd rock from the sun...
    #4
    Man, you should inform yourself about what you are talking. Did you ever actually read how that ICC will work?

    The US administration always acts "america first" under Bush!!! Did you ever think about it that actually the actions of the US are maybe violating the souvereignity of other countries? I could name you several laws from the last few years where US american law is tried to make world law and not only inside the USA. Best example is the DMCA, which allows to imprison people (wo are not US citizens) for violations of copyrights that were done outside the US, even the law at the place were the violation took place after US law wasn't one there! Wonna talk about violating souvereignity???

    It is funny! The USA were forcing globalisation for decades, but now when it starts to "work" they show their real face. All the time the only goal was to get advantages out of it. As soon as there are some disadvantages they cry "national interests"!

    It doesn't work like that buddy! No country alone can make the rules of the whole world, no matter if it is armed like the US or not!

    You guys will learn your lesson about globalisation sooner or later, don't worry! And it seems to me it will be the hard way when I read comments like yours!

    groovebuster
     
  5. SoarEyes macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    #5
    Groove one word........ bloodpressure :p

    Just one point I’d like to make (s)hitman (hehe you were asking for it)
    you do realise america was once for the worldcourt and would be part of it.
    Don’t know whether you know this, but on this issue america is now shouldering with country’s like north-Korea, libia, israel and irak not a list of buddies to be proud of.
    Again this has nothing to do with my view on americans just on shrimpface.

    ;)


    I love the Northern and southern hemisheres the best
     
  6. drastik thread starter macrumors 6502a

    drastik

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2002
    Location:
    Nashvegas
    #6
    The Us is definitely reversing an ealier position with this, and I agree that they should not try to enforce US laws where other Countries have no such laws. That is blatently a play to support big business in this o****ry alone, and has nothing to do with the good of the people in those countries.

    However, a sift from globiliztion and a refusal to take part in Peacekeeping is a different thing, and much more dangerous. In effect, we are aying that we will do it on our own, which we probably are capable of doing, but at the expense of the rest of the world. Other countries already dislike our poitics of globalization. If we now intend to carryout our past heavy handed enforcement of our principles across the world, but decline to take part in world security, we're not only going to upset nations, we are going to make enemys.

    I think that most people don't understand what it is the United Nations does. In essence, they are a humanitarian aide organization, they help fight AIDS in Africa and all of that good stuff. They really have no authority over any nation besides the threat that they will no longer recieve UN services. As far as peacekeeping goes, that is largely the US providing those services. I think that this move negates our mandate to fight terrorism across the globe.
     
  7. sturm375 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Location:
    Bakersfield, CA
    #7
    Everybody should realize by now, that the US way system is the best around, and all should adopt it. Better yet, every country in the world should just become another US State.:D














    For those without a sense of humor, this is sarcasim. ;)
     
  8. sparkleytone macrumors 68020

    sparkleytone

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC
    #8
    the british and american systems of government are the only ones in this world that you can truly call successful, and they are both in political and economic power because of it. get with the program. the peaceful passing of leadership responsibilities is the most beautiful part of our government.
     
  9. iH8Quark macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2002
    Location:
    Big Shoulders
    #9
    I think that NOBODY should be above the law, and we do need some type of global court.

    However, in light of the recent global situation, I think global red tape is ill timed. Particularly is the US is attacked again, I think some SERIOUSLY heavy **** is going to go down. I would hate to see beaurocracy derail actions we may need to take. Europeans (no offense to any on this board) are a bunch of pandering puss!es. They always want to "talk it over", or "negotiate" with dangerous regimes or organizations. (not that I blame them. 2 world wars takes its toll on a people). IMHO, the world doesn't really have time for beaurocracy. We have to prevent chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons from falling into the wrong hands, and, even worse, being used.

    No time to talk, no time for political maneuvering. We just need to act. I think this is where the administration is coming from. On that front, I whole-heartedly agree.

    just my $.02 ;)

    I really wasn't trying to offend anyone. sorry if i did. :(
     
  10. SoarEyes macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    #10
    I hate to be a wise-ass and I wouldn’t have beleived if I hadn’t just read it....... BUT

    At this moment there’s 15 peacekeeping operations going on. On 8 of those operations uniformed Americans join in. At this moment there’s 704 americans on a total of 45.159 uniformed UN workers . not including civilian workers.


    sorry but....... sorry :confused:
     
  11. iH8Quark macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2002
    Location:
    Big Shoulders
    #11
    ...of course, it could have a lot to do with the fact that every time there's a global conflict, or two third-world countries can't get along, it's mostly US troops and US taxpayer dollars that go to assist. We give more than any other nation on earth. But then again, we should.

    2 more cents. FWIW
     
  12. drastik thread starter macrumors 6502a

    drastik

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2002
    Location:
    Nashvegas
    #12
    Your right on that sore, but half is still half. And as far as UN workers go, many are civilians and they count as well. The UN is a huge organization, and its sad that people in this country write it off as a do nothing body, if everyone werebetter informed, there would probably be more civilians working for the UN.

    I'm not saying that The US is the end all of the UN, but I do think that if you remove the US from Peacekeeping, the ability to Peacekeep signifigantly decreases, along with the threat factor.

    The point here is: should the US be accountable to a higher body? We don't run the wrold. I personaly believe that we should not be accountable to anyone except the citizns of the US as long as it applies on our soil. Outside the US, its not our rules no matter how hard we try to make it that way.

    The administration tries to be unnaccountable to its own citizenry (shadow gov. secret tribunals, office of misinformation, etc.) I am not surprised that they don't want to be accountable tothe rest of the world. Does this mean we have to abandon the rest of the world?
     
  13. SoarEyes macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    #13
    yes and no

    Yes:
    you guys have a way of doing the things you say.
    Afghanistan is dealt with in the best possible way and I applaud
    you for it. Also the way you go after terrorism has my respect.

    No:
    I don’t wan’t to be to cynical but there’s sometimes other things
    besides moral outrage that decide when america goes to war.
    Naming: American interests oil and other commodities let’s not forget the arms industrie.

    America is not unique in this respect all politics in any country
    contains a certain level of hypocrisy.

    In that sense man behaves exactly like a bunch of apes fighting over a banana with america being the biggest ape

    :D
     
  14. TimDaddy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2002
    Location:
    Versailles, KY (and that's pronounced Vurr-sales)
    #14

    Ummm... Duh!!! The administration of the US should act US first!!! Canada should be Canada-first, Britain should be Britain-first, Dubai should be Dubai-first, and so on. Why elect a leader if he or she is only going to worry about other countries. I'm not saying that we shouldn't help others, nor am I commenting on the topic of the thread. I just get sick of my president getting dogged for looking after his nation first.
     
  15. drastik thread starter macrumors 6502a

    drastik

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2002
    Location:
    Nashvegas
    #15
    I'm gonna make a T-shirt from this thing I saw on the Simpsons. Homer was wearing it in Brazil. It had a picture of Uncle Sam taking a big bite out of the planet and it said "try and stop us" over him. Anybody want one?:D
     
  16. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #16
    First, the court will not dictate how the US acts internally. Our domestic business is our own.

    The court would judge our policies and actions against other nations. This is a VERY GOOD THING!!! For years our actions have been above question by any other body on earth. We have been able to do whatever we want to whomever we want and as long as we say that it is in the interest of our democracy it was OK. It is not OK.

    The fact is that the US needs to learn how to play well with others. Look at our system of law. Lets say that a person was threatening you. Under law, there needs to be proof that this person is actually posing a danger to you. You cannot just have the person arrested because they may or may not be dangerous. You need proof.

    Similarly, if you are charged with a crime, the system takes over and detains you until you can be given a fair trial. The rights of the accused are protected. This is how an optimal international court would work. Nations must be able to solve their problems without a single nation dictating what the rules are.

    Right now, we pretty much do what we want. This generally mean that we act in OUR best interest. This only makes sense. People and countries act in their own best interest. The point of having laws is to make sure that order, individual rights, and peace exist while people are trying to act in their best interest. The result is that you must consider how your actions effect other people.

    What an international court would provide is accountability. Nations would have to consider the rights of other nations and their people when they make decisions. This would apply to both military actions as well as other international problems like trade, business, criminal acts by individuals, etc.

    What we need to remember is that if we really believe in our republic of the US, we need to apply the same principles to how nations interact. Should we let the majority of nations or the strongest nations walk all over the rights of the minority?? Not if our system of law in this country is any guide.

    Taft
     
  17. job macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #17
    And you do realise that was under the Clinton admin. and times do change. Clinton signed the Rome treaty during one of his last days in office without realising what he was getting us into. I'm not saying that the United States should be given free reign throughout most the world; however I do find it unsettling that foreign countries may have the capacity to dictate and perhaps even bend at their discresion, American foreign policy. No matter what country you are from, foreign policy is dictated in the best interest of the country in question.

    And I refuse to stoop to your level and begin throwing petty insults. ;)

    peace
     
  18. job macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #18
    It is called the United Nations for a reason. It is supposed to be a joint effort between all the nations in the world. So what if there are only 704 American personal? Are you saying that America should play the role of world police man?
     
  19. groovebuster macrumors 65816

    groovebuster

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Location:
    3rd rock from the sun...
    #19
    You don't get the point! If you do that on your own soil it is OK, but not in the rest of the world. Then it is just "hey, I am stronger than you, so what do you wonna do about it?" The world isn't as simple as you seem to be. Think about it twice before you reply...

    groovebuster
     
  20. SoarEyes macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    #20
    Naw ofcourse not wally........ I was merely responding to iH8Quark’s quote



    :rolleyes:


    I still say the rest of the world is crazy
    -Bush-
     
  21. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #21
    Yeesh.

    The reason Bush doesn't support the world court is because **** Chaney, George Herbert Walker Bush, Ronald Reagan, Oliver North and a whole laundry list of other ex-spooks and corrupt politico's would be up on trial before you could say "Karma's a bitch, aint it?"

    As to peacekeeping:

    Most UN Peacekeepers are (guess who) CANADIANS. The point of pointing out how few American Peacekeepers there are is that, for the sheer mass of the US millitary the proportional # of personnel and resources dedicated to true Global Security is PAWLTRY. Canada has a tiny millitary that dedicates thousands of volunteers to the UN every year.

    This was never about Sovereignty. This is about the responsability that goes with emmense power. Time to pay the ****ing piper boys.
     
  22. groovebuster macrumors 65816

    groovebuster

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Location:
    3rd rock from the sun...
    #22
    It is already playing that role since a while by itself, following almost only their own interests. Did you know, that 2/3 of the heroine sold in the US came from Afghanistan before? Tell me one reason why the US didn't take measures before to protect their citizens? I am pretty sure that the heroine killed more people than the attack on 9/11. But a few drug addicts more or less don't count, right? ;)

    The US is choosing allies not based on morals, but on tactical (economical and military) reasons, they always did. They supported e.g. Saddam Hussein in the war against Iran and now they don't get rid of him again. Maybe you should count for yourself how often that already happened in the last 100 years!??!

    I am happy to read some decent comments from US americans here who don't seem to be as brain-washed like a lot of others across the big pond.

    Have fun.

    groovebuster
     
  23. job macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #23
    I think that states clearly enough why I am against the ICC.

    peace
     
  24. SoarEyes macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    #24
    whoops meant this one

    sorry iH8Quark
     
  25. job macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #25
    Recognize these statements? They just happen to be the grievences in the Declaration of Independence. These issues, through the ICC, may once again afflict the citizens of our country.

    peace
     

Share This Page