Tweet
I disagree, the UN is the wrong way to go... keep its corruption out of world affairs. The US is the one with the legiminate force and power to do things in this world. Not the bloody UN and its corrupt cronies.
-
For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence) -
The UN is not perfect, no-one is saying that it is. Say one has two options, the first would be to strengthen the UN, so its flaws are eliminated, or the alternative being one nation being the international policeman, with all the problems that poses I have explained above.Originally posted by elijah
whereas the UN was objective. Instead of disbanding it, I think we should make the UN stronger, changing its form so other nations can no longer circumvent this "court".
Tough choice
"I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:Comment
-
You have explained nothing, leftist. Nothing at all. The US is the nation that has to be the international policeman, not some cheap and worthless organization that has a history of doing every single thing wrong.Originally posted by elijah
The UN is not perfect, no-one is saying that it is. Say one has two options, the first would be to strengthen the UN, so its flaws are eliminated, or the alternative being one nation being the international policeman, with all the problems that poses I have explained above.
Tough choice
For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
The US has no "legitimacy" except as an empire, Fezzy-wezzy. There are no sovereign rights to project force beyond national borders, except in recognized territory covered by treaty between sovereign nations (i.e. NATO)When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."Comment
-
So?Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The US has no "legitimacy" except as an empire, Fezzy-wezzy. There are no sovereign rights to project force beyond national borders, except in recognized territory covered by treaty between sovereign nations (i.e. NATO)For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
We need more than that?Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The US has no "legitimacy" except as an empire, Fezzy-wezzy.I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator RubioComment
-
You mean legitimate?Originally posted by Fez
I disagree, the UN is the wrong way to go... keep its corruption out of world affairs. The US is the one with the legiminate force and power to do things in this world. Not the bloody UN and its corrupt cronies.
What legitimizes it? Please tell me...
My words are backed with hard coconuts.Comment
-
Mere typo... I make that one all the time.Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
You mean legitimate?
What legitimizes it? Please tell me...
The sole reason is that the US has the most power and is quite literally the only nation that can get the job done.For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
"I disagree, the UN is the wrong way to go... keep its corruption out of world affairs."
That argument appears to be based on the assumption that wherever the UN goes, corruption and cronies go too (sounds familiar). The difference though is that is not the case. It wuold not take more than a few nuts and bolts adjustments to make the UN immune to such acts. Besides, problems regarding its ability is no justification for ignoring its judgement, and preferring that of a unilateral subjective force. Despite its imperfections, related to the subjective of one nation, the UN (look at the name) is more objective.
"The US is the one with the legiminate force and power to do things in this world. Not the bloody UN and its corrupt cronies."
It is not legitimate though, relative to the UN. No other nation has agreed to the concessions required by the UN, to the US!! It has no right into other sovereign nations, barring their asking entrance. It has the power, that is for sure, it does not have the justification to impose its subjective will onto another equally valid subjective.
I must have used that phrase so many times in the past week, if anyone wants an explanation of this use of subjective and objective, PM me."I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:Comment
-
And all that you said is based on the fact that nation-states, like the US won;t give the UN more power to act like a world policeman becuase most states around the world would never spend a dime to stop something like the rwandan genocide becuase for most of its voters, it is a non-issue, just funny lokking people with funny names killing each other so why should they care?Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The UN are a bunch of corrupt whores who can't even peacekeep their way out of a wet paper bag. UN "Peacekeepers" taken hostage by ****ing African rebels, and the UN having to go in on it's knees and ask nicely if we can please have them back safely?
Or how about the Belgie paras who cut the UN insignia of their uniforms with their combat knives, then stepped on them, as an expression of disgust at how their hands were tied in dealing with the Rwandan genocide?
The UN is as weak as it members make it, becuase they want a weak UN, because they don't care or whish to keep getting away with murder (literally). Want to rag on the UN , rag on the things that make it up, the 190+ states of this world.
Which just goes to show the main issue of this thread: the American people could give a rats ass about loiberating anyone, making anyones lives better out of thier pocket (look at the lukewarm at best support for actions in Yugoslavia). but get them to think there is a threat..and lets bombd the hell out fo them. The People of the US backed war against Iraq because they believed Iraq to be a threat, an immiment threat, due to what the gov told them.If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard ShawComment
-
Forget Elijah. You are hopeless. The UN is not legitimate in any case. They should be disbanded as the useless money sucking organization they are. So basically the US should tell the weak UN to **** off.For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
I think the Bush administration's incompetence "de-legitimizes" that Policeman role.
They are too much of a risk, cause they don't see the implications of what they do. In other words, they are naive... Just my opinion.
Now I'm outta here, but ye all mark my words... It's gonna be a WW soon.My words are backed with hard coconuts.Comment
-
What incompetence? The Bush adminstration isn't incompetent.Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
I think the Bush administration's incompetence "de-legitimizes" that Policeman role. Those stooges in Paris, Berlin and Moscow are.
And you are out of your mind.They are too much of a risk, cause they don't see the implications of what they do. In other words, they are naive... Just my opinion.For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
"The sole reason is that the US has the most power and is quite literally the only nation that can get the job done"
Sorry, but more is needed than mere power. Precidents are set, which can lead to damaging consequences, corruption is entirely possible in both those consequences and the immediate action. Also, the US has final word over what happens to its resources, so if the arguments to do something apply equally to another example, but the US has a different sentiment, then the US is less likely to get involved, although the situation on the ground is the same.
Lets not forget the corruption inherent in placing global security in the hands on one nation, with its own agenda to keep, especially one that is so powerful as the US.
"You have explained nothing, leftist."
"Forget Elijah. You are hopeless."
Fez I can take your usual bull, but I will not stand for personal insults, you keep doing that, I'll report you.
"The US is the nation that has to be the international policeman, not some cheap and worthless organization that has a history of doing every single thing wrong"
What about all the other stuff the UN does? The altruistic work like rights, children, refugees, drugs, landmines, etc etc etc. I'd call that a pretty major success, baring in mind the context in which the UN was formed, I'd call it pretty successful. Id say it was in need of modification, but that goes without saying as international situations change.
"The US is the nation that has to be the international policeman"
Not necessarily. It is not so inclined to do stuff that is not in its own economic interest, as its resources, though huge, are finite, it will logically only use them in its own interest in one way or another. Also, what would nations that dont accept the US think about having it as an international policeman? Undoubtably the same that most Americans would feel about having Iran, China or Cuba as the international police."I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:Comment
-
How soon? I hate vague psychics!Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
Now I'm outta here, but ye all mark my words... It's gonna be a WW soon.
I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator RubioComment
Comment