Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Oct 18, 2003.
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.
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.
The UN needs to either get fixed or dumped, but DubyaBush isn't the man to suggest how.
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.
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!
I think every country should adopt the Swiss foreign policy. We would have world peace and free trade within six months.
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!
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
As opposed to what? When we "fix" problems with military force?
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.
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.
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.
Sorry, no rage intended toward you.
Perhaps you can clarify what you mean when you say,
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.
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.
No, it is not synonymous, but it is the cornerstone of International law in the case of conflict between nations.