Why do Americans have an irrational fear of international organizations?

[Imran Siddiqui]

there is no reason that I can see to volunteerly give power to those who do not seek our best interest unless we are made to

And that's the problem. If we don't join now and steer the ship, later on we will be made to join when we aren't on top and by that time the terms will be in place and we'll have to accept them without complaint. If we get in now, we can prevent it from getting to that level and having an impact on it.

Though, for the life of me, I have no idea how giving more power to, say, the WHO, ICC, IMF, etc is really hurting the US in anyway whatsoever.

the problem is that you want nations to be equal

they aren't, the US is stronger than the rest

so therefore it is unequal to force the US to do what a bunch of weaker nations want

This argument can be used against the US Senate by California.

[Jon Miller]

but there is also a house of representatives, which give states like california more power

the UN is missing something dependent on power of the states involved (except for the SC veto which 5 hold)

also, I don't particularly like being in the same country as Alabama or Mississippi; I definitely don't want to be in the same country as Iran or Sudan or Zimbabwai

Jon Miller

[Imran Siddiqui]

but there is also a house of representatives, which give states like california more power

So, you'd be ok if the UN had another House based on population?

also, I don't particularly like being in the same country as Alabama or Mississippi; I definitely don't want to be in the same country as Iran or Sudan or Zimbabwai

UN is not a country. It's a super-national organization like the EU, AU, OAS, etc.

[Whoha]

The way to remodel the organizations so that it is "fair" is to have a proportional weighting system, like the security council, or the IMF/World Bank. Unfortunately, that just leads to the US ****ing the rest of the world. Now when Burkina Faso or Belize has an equal say to the US, that just ****s the US.

So what we have is in some instances we are ****ing them, and in some instances they are ****ing us. as per Imrans suggestion we'd just be ****ing them, and they'd not be ****ing us. as per Che, they'd be ****ing us, and we'd not be ****ing them. I like my solution of we aren't ****ing them and they aren't ****ing us though.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

but there is also a house of representatives, which give states like california more power

So, you'd be ok if the UN had another House based on population?

also, I don't particularly like being in the same country as Alabama or Mississippi; I definitely don't want to be in the same country as Iran or Sudan or Zimbabwai

UN is not a country. It's a super-national organization like the EU, AU, OAS, etc.

no, I would be ok with it if it kicked some people out, and than had a house based upon power (function of
GDP and military might)

a supernational organization is just a state of a different name, if it is getting sovereignty, than it is a government

Jon Miller
(same way as the Vatican was/is a state inside the state of other states)

[Imran Siddiqui]

than had a house based upon power (function of
GDP and military might)

So do you want the US House of Representatives to be proportioned based on GDP of the states? Rich people get more seats, poor get less?

a supernational organization is just a state of a different name

Um, no it isn't. The UN has no direct soveriegn power over any individual anywhere.

[Japher]

Belize

What's good for the goose ain't always good for the gander, IMO.

like the WTO tries to encourage competition by imposing and lifting sanctions willy nilly. I am suppose to be happy that my family is out of their farm because I have to eat food grown in 3rd world countries probably loaded with pesticides and other pollutants from the near by nuclear facility that leaks because they're a freakin' 3rd world country!!! My kids should have 3 eyes because of an international organization says so.


Also, some the restrictions placed on countries is done so unfairly without regards to industry, reliability, and local dependence. That is something, local legislature should involve themselves with, and not global commities.

Similarly, the give other countries tons of money to "help" them out when instead the use that money to fund nuclear weapon research, the royal families collection of 200+ cars, and subscriptions to Playboy instead of feeding the starving within the country.

I think when world interest dictates local economies bad things are bound happen. It's why I fear the EU.

[Ramo]

Why should a state's vote be based on GDP and military might?

[Az]

like the WTO tries to encourage competition by imposing and lifting sanctions willy nilly. I am suppose to be happy that my family is out of their farm because I have to eat food grown in 3rd world countries probably loaded with pesticides and other pollutants from the near by nuclear facility that leaks because they're a freakin' 3rd world country!!! My kids should have 3 eyes because of an international organization says so.

Communist bastard.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I am suppose to be happy that my family is out of their farm because I have to eat food grown in 3rd world countries probably loaded with pesticides and other pollutants from the near by nuclear facility that leaks because they're a freakin' 3rd world country!!! My kids should have 3 eyes because of an international organization says so.

Um... it's the US that wants the free trade and has pushed the IMF to continue that practice. Even without the IMF, I'm sure you'd be getting the same situation because of our domestic policy.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

than had a house based upon power (function of
GDP and military might)

So do you want the US House of Representatives to be proportioned based on GDP of the states? Rich people get more seats, poor get less?

a supernational organization is just a state of a different name

Um, no it isn't. The UN has no direct soveriegn power over any individual anywhere.

the richer states generally had more population (especially in the past)

so the compromise was population base because that was easiest

in the world, population has nothing to do with the 'wealth' of the state

if the US has less sovereignty than it did before, than the UN must have more, so it is a state (as in having sovereign power more than none)

JOn Miller
(I thought you studied this stuff)

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ramo
Why should a state's vote be based on GDP and military might?

because they reflect power

otherwise it would be the state giving up its power for nothing in return

not really fair to it or it's citizens I beleive

Jon Miller

[Japher]

it's the US that wants the free trade and has pushed the IMF to continue that practice. Even without the IMF, I'm sure you'd be getting the same situation because of our domestic policy.

nope, wrong. Kyoto agreement sucks too.

[Imran Siddiqui]

if the US has less sovereignty than it did before, than the UN must have more, so it is a state

Um no. Can you describe to me who the UN has direct sovereignty over? Which people the UN is solely responsible for?

Is your opinion that the Organization of American States is a state? What about the African Union? How about the European Union?

If the UN was a state, then they should apply for membership in the UN!

the richer states generally had more population (especially in the past)

so the compromise was population base because that was easiest

in the world, population has nothing to do with the 'wealth' of the state

So it's ok for you to allocate political power based on how much money you got?

[Imran Siddiqui]

nope, wrong.

Nope, right. Or do you think the IMF has been the one negotiating US free trade agreements like NAFTA?