Sovereignty??

[cbi0090]

I have a real problem with the idea of national sovereignty when it's obvious that it's really just group of thugs holding a population hostage (normally at gun point). What makes a sovereign nation? Cases in point: Burma or Sudan. What should international law recognize as a legitimate country or government? Should it recognize one that pillages the wealth of the nation to cover it's own sorry paranoid asses like North Korea or Burma, or one that systematically attempts genocide on a large portion of its population like Sudan?

 

[Larkinn]

Who decides if its just a bunch of thugs? The US? The UN? The problem with the US doing it is that then its basically just another form of imperialism. The problem with the UN doing it is that the UN is predicated on national sovreignity.

There isn't anyone to decide. What your really after is an international, independent government to overthrow national governments if they get out of line. I'm down with that, but I don't think very many other people are unfortunately. We are moving closer to that model with the creation of the ICC, however it was greatly weakened by the US both in its altering the treaty, and in its refusal to sign even the weaker altered treaty that eventually came into force.

 

[Swamp Fox]

The UN can't even decide how to define the word terrorist, so what good are they?

 

[Larkinn]

The UN can't even decide how to define the word terrorist, so what good are they?

Actually that would be states that can't agree to define the word. They have, however, specified some individual acts which do fall under the definition even though they can't agree on a definition for the word.

 

[Swamp Fox]

So we should look to them to help the world because of?????????????

The UN has been in existence since 1945 and I can't think of ONE thing that it has done right. Time to dissolve that world body, throw the bums out of NY and put the money to all of those domestic programs the Dems seem to want to have.

 

[Larkinn]

So we should look to them to help the world because of?????????????

Because they are all you've got.

The UN has been in existence since 1945 and I can't think of ONE thing that it has done right. Time to dissolve that world body, throw the bums out of NY and put the money to all of those domestic programs the Dems seem to want to have.

It got food and supplies into Burma and the US didn't. Thats one very recent example of what they've been able to do.

Throw them out of NY? I wasn't aware you advocated the state nationalizing private property. When did this shift come about?

 

[Swamp Fox]

Because they are all you've got.

If I have reached the point where the UN is all I've got, it's a sad, sad world. The day I rely on the UN to fix my problems is the day after I've been fitted with a toe tag.

It got food and supplies into Burma and the US didn't. Thats one very recent example of what they've been able to do.

Actually, US planes have landed in Burma and are offloading as we speak. More stuff for the junta to commandeer and keep for themselves.

Throw them out of NY? I wasn't aware you advocated the state nationalizing private property. When did this shift come about?

My error, I should have said throw them out of the US and quit making our extremely large contribution until the other nations step up and start to provide. Actually, scratch that, just get rid of them completely.

 

[Larkinn]

If I have reached the point where the UN is all I've got, it's a sad, sad world. The day I rely on the UN to fix my problems is the day after I've been fitted with a toe tag.

Nobody gives a shit if you feel the need to rely on them, fact is America does rely on them.

Actually, US planes have landed in Burma and are offloading as we speak. More stuff for the junta to commandeer and keep for themselves.

2 days later. How many more died? And actually the Junta hasn't been keeping the goods they took, they've been giving it out, they are just pretending its from them. That the UN was able to get in a few days early saved lives.

My error, I should have said throw them out of the US and quit making our extremely large contribution until the other nations step up and start to provide. Actually, scratch that, just get rid of them completely.

Umm, again, throwing them out of the US is the state nationalizing private property. You do know that the UN building in New York isn't owned, nor was it provided, by the US, State, or local government, right?

I find it hilarious that the US benefits from the UN so much and yet all so many Americans want to leave. Luckily US leaders will never be stupid enough to withdraw from the UN so your little fantasies will forever go unfulfilled.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Nobody gives a shit if you feel the need to rely on them, fact is America does rely on them.

We rely on them? Last time I checked, the UN runs on American money. Also, I have yet to see the UN do anything that has helped America in any way. The UN is a tick on the ass of the world and it is time to fumigate.

2 days later. How many more died? And actually the Junta hasn't been keeping the goods they took, they've been giving it out, they are just pretending its from them. That the UN was able to get in a few days early saved lives.

Not our fault the junta didn't let us land earlier.

Umm, again, throwing them out of the US is the state nationalizing private property. You do know that the UN building in New York isn't owned, nor was it provided, by the US, State, or local government, right?

So they can take the fucking building with them, as long as they go.

I find it hilarious that the US benefits from the UN so much and yet all so many Americans want to leave. Luckily US leaders will never be stupid enough to withdraw from the UN so your little fantasies will forever go unfulfilled.

I find it hilarious that you think the UN is worth a damn. Maybe our illustrious leaders should actually start listening to the people they're supposed to represent and get the hell out of the UN. The only fantasies going on around here are the ones in your head with the beautiful UN leading the way.

 

[Larkinn]

We rely on them? Last time I checked, the UN runs on American money. Also, I have yet to see the UN do anything that has helped America in any way. The UN is a tick on the ass of the world and it is time to fumigate.

Provided legitimacy for the US invading other sovreign nations.

Not our fault the junta didn't let us land earlier.

Who said it was the US's fault? Thats an irrelevant and a strawman.

So they can take the fucking building with them, as long as they go.

They own the land, genius.

I find it hilarious that you think the UN is worth a damn. Maybe our illustrious leaders should actually start listening to the people they're supposed to represent and get the hell out of the UN. The only fantasies going on around here are the ones in your head with the beautiful UN leading the way.

Pretty much anyone with even a basic understanding of the international stage thinks the UN is worthwhile. That you don't speaks volumes.

 

[Gungnir]

Condemn the property as an accessory to foreign powers acting against American interest. Condemn their earphones as a public health hazard, cite their silent meditation room as a state sponsored religious service. There ARE excuses.

Legitimacy is derived from a Constitution basis and a profitability to the American people -- foreign heathens be damned.

We do not have a requirement to serve as a disaster relief for other countries. If it is offered and they do not like Uncle Sam's conditions--tough.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Condemn the property as an accessory to foreign powers acting against American interest. Condemn their earphones as a public health hazard, cite their silent meditation room as a state sponsored religious service. There ARE excuses.

Legitimacy is derived from a Constitution basis and a profitability to the American people -- foreign heathens be damned.

We do not have a requirement to serve as a disaster relief for other countries. If it is offered and they do not like Uncle Sam's conditions--tough.

Foreign heathens be damned.........LOL

 

[Swamp Fox]

Provided legitimacy for the US invading other sovreign nations.

I thought we were a rogue nation that just invaded people willy nilly and such? When do we need permission?

Who said it was the US's fault? Thats an irrelevant and a strawman.

Meaning you don't have an argument to counter mine.

They own the land, genius.

Not after we repossess it. It is AMERICAN soil, is it not?

Pretty much anyone with even a basic understanding of the international stage thinks the UN is worthwhile. That you don't speaks volumes.

Meaning, all of you elitist liberals who think that it takes a village to raise a child (because you can't handle the kid on your own without drugging them) feel the need to have waste of time and space function because it makes you feel good.

 

[Gungnir]

You know if you add another "u" to the front of UN it becomes WN... Willy Nilly.

<----

 

[Larkinn]

Condemn the property as an accessory to foreign powers acting against American interest. Condemn their earphones as a public health hazard, cite their silent meditation room as a state sponsored religious service. There ARE excuses.

To steal private property? Sure there are. So much for the ideals of individual rights and property rights.

Legitimacy is derived from a Constitution basis and a profitability to the American people -- foreign heathens be damned.

Umm, no actually. Its derived from the Constitution. Nothing in there about profiability to the American people.

We do not have a requirement to serve as a disaster relief for other countries. If it is offered and they do not like Uncle Sam's conditions--tough.

So your willing to let innocent Burmese civilians die because of the idiotic Burmese government? Nice.

 

[Larkinn]

I thought we were a rogue nation that just invaded people willy nilly and such? When do we need permission?

Nice strawman. By the way, their "permission" gets you a strong international coalition with lots of other countries providing troops, money, and support.

Compare Iraq War I with UN support and 200,000 non-US troops and Iraq War 2 with no UN support and 50,000 non-US troops.

Meaning you don't have an argument to counter mine.

Your "argument", if it can even be called that was that it wasn't the US's fault. Considering this is irrelevant since the UN got food in first and saved lives before the US did because of the legitimacy the UN has, and the legitimacy the US lacks.

Not after we repossess it. It is AMERICAN soil, is it not?

Actually no, its considered international territory. Even if it wasn't reposessing it strikes of socialism. But then I guess it would be expected that someone like you would have a fair degree of self-hatred.

Meaning, all of you elitist liberals who think that it takes a village to raise a child (because you can't handle the kid on your own without drugging them) feel the need to have waste of time and space function because it makes you feel good.

Wow, where did that come from? Projecting much?

 

[Larkinn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations#Successes_in_security_issues

The Human Security Report 2005,[21] produced by the Human Security Centre at the University of British Columbia with support from several governments and foundations, documented a dramatic, but largely unrecognized, decline in the number of wars, genocides and human rights abuses since the end of the Cold War. Statistics include:

* a 40% drop in violent conflict;
* an 80% drop in the most deadly conflicts; and
* an 80% drop in genocide and policide.

The report argued that international activism — mostly spearheaded by the UN — has been the main cause of the post–Cold War decline in armed conflict, though the report indicated the evidence for this contention is mostly circumstantial.

In the area of Peacekeeping, successes include:

* A 2005 RAND Corp study found the UN to be successful in two out of three peacekeeping efforts. It also compared UN nation-building efforts to those of the U.S., and found that of eight UN cases, seven are at peace, whereas of eight U.S. cases, four are at peace.[22]

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ya the UN delivered aid and what happened to it, Larkinn? Why the Junta got it for their military use of course. Just as happens around the world where UN aid is seized by Governments and rather then delivered to the people is used to prop up the Government.

Remind us of all those child molestors and Rapists that the UN sent to protect people in Africa while you are at it. How about that Oil for food scandal that the UN swept under the rug?

Ya we should give to the UN so they can give to the Governments rather than the people. We should support an organization that can't and won't enforce it's own edicts. That encourages corruption and graft and gets people killed.

 

[Larkinn]

Ya the UN delivered aid and what happened to it, Larkinn? Why the Junta got it for their military use of course. Just as happens around the world where UN aid is seized by Governments and rather then delivered to the people is used to prop up the Government.

No, actually it IS being delivered to the people, its just being used as a propaganda tool. That aid is saving lives, and no amount of your whining and bitching about it changes that fact.

Remind us of all those child molestors and Rapists that the UN sent to protect people in Africa while you are at it. How about that Oil for food scandal that the UN swept under the rug?

Do you think the US sent torturers to protect the people of Iraq? Funny how your views change if we are talking about UN personnel v. US personnel that commit atrocities.

Ya we should give to the UN so they can give to the Governments rather than the people. We should support an organization that can't and won't enforce it's own edicts. That encourages corruption and graft and gets people killed.

Idiot. The Junta is going to take the aid the US gives as well. I don't hear you condemning the US, why is that? And actually we should make the UN able to enforce its own edicts via an international military. Oh wait, you don't want that. You want it to be able to enforce its edicts by saying "hey...you...do x" and everyone falling in line. Well no shit its not happening just like that.

Same old bullshit. People criticize the UN for failing to have the power to do what they themselves specifically don't want the UN to have the power to do.

 

[cbi0090]

I've been gone a few days but I'm glad to see my topic did generate some interest. My way of looking at it is from a Human rights perspective. When does a government quit being a government if its purpose is to serve its people? Is that even a definition of a government?
You can kind of parrallel it with children's rights. When do parents quit being parents if their purpose is to raise their children? We don't seem to have much trouble damn those whom we find abusing their children, so why do we have different attitudes about those who abuse, starve, and kill their constituency?
People in these countries have about as much say in who wields power over them as children have in who their parents are and they treat them not much differently. They regulate what they see, read, what they believe (at least outwardly), where they live,... basically how they live. Not much different.
I agree that there is little we can do at times but I don't buy the sovereign arguement. It's become something for ruthless bandits to hide behind.