Globalization

[indago]

Journalist Edward Wong reported for the New York Times 23 December 2008:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the clearest indication yet that China could soon begin building its first aircraft carrier, a Defense Ministry spokesman said Tuesday that the country was seriously considering "relevant issues" in making its decision about whether to move ahead with the project, according to Xinhua, the state news agency. The spokesman, Huang Xueping, said at a news conference in Beijing that aircraft carriers were "a reflection of a nation's comprehensive power," indicating that Chinese government officials saw value in adding a carrier to the country's fleet. Mr. Huang said that China would use any aircraft carrier built in the future to safeguard its shores and defend "sovereignty over coastal areas and territorial seas," Xinhua reported.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This should be denounced by the United Nations in the clearest form. The United States should file a protest with the United Nations denouncing this move by the China Military. With the United States moving toward open borders, and globalization, any nation's quest for "comprehensive power", and "sovereignty" must be looked upon as not a good faith move. If the Chinese Military wants to build a carrier for the United Nations, the overseer of globalization, and world government, then so be it. Every nation should also turn over their military equipment to the United Nations for their use in controlling the globalized system.

 

[Modbert]

Journalist Edward Wong reported for the New York Times 23 December 2008:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the clearest indication yet that China could soon begin building its first aircraft carrier, a Defense Ministry spokesman said Tuesday that the country was seriously considering "relevant issues" in making its decision about whether to move ahead with the project, according to Xinhua, the state news agency. The spokesman, Huang Xueping, said at a news conference in Beijing that aircraft carriers were "a reflection of a nation's comprehensive power," indicating that Chinese government officials saw value in adding a carrier to the country's fleet. Mr. Huang said that China would use any aircraft carrier built in the future to safeguard its shores and defend "sovereignty over coastal areas and territorial seas," Xinhua reported.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This should be denounced by the United Nations in the clearest form. The United States should file a protest with the United Nations denouncing this move by the China Military. With the United States moving toward open borders, and globalization, any nation's quest for "comprehensive power", and "sovereignty" must be looked upon as not a good faith move. If the Chinese Military wants to build a carrier for the United Nations, the overseer of globalization, and world government, then so be it. Every nation should also turn over their military equipment to the United Nations for their use in controlling the globalized system.

I wouldn't want China or the UN to have any sort of standing military. I trust the UN as far as I can throw their building in New York. A bunch of useless bullshit spewed with nothing ever done. They have failed miserably at their goal of peace and stopping future genocides since 1945. It's become the new League of Nations.

 

[Toro]

Why would the UN condemn China for building aircraft carriers? Other countries have them. Is there an anti-aircraft carrier treaty? Why would China not have the right to build a carrier? Should international law not allow the US to build any new carriers?

 

[indago]

Why would the UN condemn China for building aircraft carriers? Other countries have them. Is there an anti-aircraft carrier treaty? Why would China not have the right to build a carrier? Should international law not allow the US to build any new carriers?

I had already noted: "Every nation should also turn over their military equipment to the United Nations for their use in controlling the globalized system."

The United Nations doesn't have to be docile. As long as we are promoting free trade between nations, and globalization, the United Nations could just as well be strengthened to bring all nations into compliance with global standards.

 

[Paulie]

Why would the UN condemn China for building aircraft carriers? Other countries have them. Is there an anti-aircraft carrier treaty? Why would China not have the right to build a carrier? Should international law not allow the US to build any new carriers?

Do you view Iran's nuclear program in the same light? Should Iran be allowed to pursue nuclear technology?

 

[Toro]

Do you view Iran's nuclear program in the same light? Should Iran be allowed to pursue nuclear technology?

Iran is a signator to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, so no.

As if applies to international law, which is what the OP is about, if you think China should not have an aircraft carrier, do you also believe America should have none also?

 

[we_ourselves]

The U.S. is the world's most powerful empire. If any nation should turn its military forces over to the UN based on your argument, it's the U.S.

 

[editec]

The U.S. is the world's most powerful empire.

Not for long...thanks to FREE TRADE.

 

[sparky]

China's doing the military/industrial gig?

now who woulda thunk an up-and-comming country to feather their nest with such aspirations?

i figure all they need is some sort of homeland security department there to make a real go of it....

 

[Toro]

The U.S. is the world's most powerful empire. If any nation should turn its military forces over to the UN based on your argument, it's the U.S.

Why in God's name would the US turn over its power or sovereignty to the UN? What possible benefit would it be to the United States to do so?

 

[indago]

Why in God's name would the US turn over its power or sovereignty to the UN? What possible benefit would it be to the United States to do so?

You're not looking at the BIG PICTURE. Forget about "power or sovereignty".

Our several States were disenchanted with the Articles of Confederation until they sent some delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to "fix" it. The same can be done with the UN.

 

[Toro]

You're not looking at the BIG PICTURE. Forget about "power or sovereignty".

Our several States were disenchanted with the Articles of Confederation until they sent some delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to "fix" it. The same can be done with the UN.

Well, fix the UN first, then convince the American people why they should cede power to the France, China, Russia, Africa, etc.

Because "power" and certainly "sovereignty" matter. A lot.

 

[editec]

The American people have already ceded power, folks.

What do you think NAFTA and GATT are all about?

Do you honestly think any nation will be a superpower that is BROKE financially?

 

[sparky]

which will be the argument for the Amero...

 

[Toro]

which will be the argument for the Amero...

There is no, nor will there ever be, anything called the Amero.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

The American people have already ceded power, folks.

What do you think NAFTA and GATT are all about?

Do you honestly think any nation will be a superpower that is BROKE financially?

I always find it kinda curious that Americans think NAFTA is a loss of sovereignty. A loss of sovereignty to who? Canada and Mexico? HAHAHA. If anyone's losing any sovereignty it's those two. THEY should be shitting their pants.

EDIT: Well, and so should we, considering CAFTA just went into effect. *Shits pants*