Cam -
When did I ever say anything about "governing the world", much less "elite?" Are you actually reading what I write or just kind of skimming, looking for "points" to be contrary about?

I expressly said EVERY democracy is invited. Please provide logical proof of how that "couldn't be any less democratic" b/c such overbroad, conclusory statements, predicated on mischaracterizations of what I said just fascinate the hell out of me. Not the statements, but that someone can make them w/o thinking them through first ... so you must've, right? Thought it through, first. Please ... prove away.

You are right that the dirtbags are doing whatever they want now anyway ... so why give them the veneer of legitimization of the UN? Why allow them to pass UN "guidance" or "resolutions" calling for the extermination of Israel? Why give them a seat at the table at all?

There is no necessary "right" to participation in any organization-- South Africa can't just show up and demand that SEATO does what SA wants, or that SA gets a seat at the table to begin with. Why don't we -- big bullies that we Yanks are, shove our way onto the OPEC board? What? We've no "right" to be there? No Way! You mean our "wants" aren't immediately and immutably transmogrified into "rights"?!?! Hummmmm... we must not be the third world.

There will be no right to participation in the LoD without the internal right in each country to self-determination. Other than that, this "inviting themselves" in to other countries crap is all in YOUR head, not mine, and says a lot more about you than about me, democracy or the power of democracies to work together.

The UN invites itself in to a lot of places ... and makes quite a hash of the places it goes. Hmmmmm, I must have missed all your posts that were critical of the UN taking international action, b/c you're evidently so opposed to it in principle. Oh, come on, you know this is the same UN with Syria and Iran chairing committees on human rights ... the same UN where Sudan's vote has the same actual and moral authorityas Australia's. The same UN whose inviting itself into countries evidently doesn't bother you so much.

Or is it that it's OK for this corrupt relic of multi-culti idealism, that is fraught to the core with anti-freedom bile and idiocracies, to go into, say Rwanda or Bosnia or Congo, where it'd be evil and "unimaginably anti-Democratic" for a League of Democracies to go in to such places.

As for your last statement, I can assure you that the US resents it when other countries meddle with our interests. Oh, but we're the ones who always have to understand the other guys and subordinate our interests to theirs ... or they'll cry.

Too bad. We have interests as well, and the primary difference between us and the rest of the world is, we can do something about them; the primary difference between us and the rest of the powers in history is, we do so very infrequently, with caution, and leave when we're finished.

JP

Keep the UN as a forum.

"and establish an organization of democracies." that's responsible for nation building.

Ron -
It can have the name "UN" but as an organization of any authority, it's done. Keep it as a NATO-like "forum", but get it the Hell out of my country. Paris seems like a medium well suited for these viruses.

Nation building -- perhaps, but not in the Clintonian sense, and not as its exclusive project.

Democracies are by nature fairly answerable (more so than the alternatives, anyway), so I'd expect their agencies to be structured in an answerable fashion which would be an immeasureable improvement over the current situation, where answerability approaches zero.

OK, gotta go teach a steak-cooking course! Mmmmmmm. Steak.

JP

If you're not in the LoD, you'd feel like the LoD was governing the world. Half the world already feels that about the US. Perhaps I should have used "policing" rather than "governing". I think my point still stands.

I think China is the best demonstration of why it is unrealistic - they aren't going to change to being a democracy just so they can be included in the LoD, and they already do what they ought to fairly selectively WRT the UN (what I suspect is the real problem behind the UN's failure in China with the NK refugees).

Excluding them from the organisation is hardly likely to IMPROVE the situation. Excluding them from the organisation then trying to make them agree to abide by the LoD's edicts on proper behaviour seems even more doomed to failure.

I do think the UN has made a terrible job of a lot of things. However, I don't think this is a reason to abandon it. I think it can be fixed - and I think it would require a concerted effort from the very same countries who would make up the LoD. It would probably require less effort than starting from scratch on LoD too.

But I think as an organisation which included all countries, the UN can be more effective, and more legitimate, than a LoD.

How many times do I have to tell you to relax, JP?

Frankly, JP, you seem to know much more about this situation than I do. And if I took the time to read up, I'd probably be incensed at the behavior of the UN. So, I'm not arguing with your negative judgement.

But I also think considerations such as those outlined by Cam need to be respected. Frankly, JP, your nation's leader could give a **** about what people think in countries that disagree with him. And his followers similarly are entirely dismissive of the kinds of concerns Cam raises. So, I have little hope that my country is going to put together any meaningful participation in a multinational organization, unless it is an organization of puppets set up to help Dubya, and folks like him, with their imperialistic agenda.

Frankly, if there is a country that has essentially controlled the UN, it is......well........who would that be?

When a CEO has to suddenly lay off 30,000 employees, I conclude that somebody screwed up, and it's fair to say I'm not likely to pin a medal on that CEO. Similarly, my country was in the UN, did not manage it properly, then abdicated just in time to invade a sovereign nation.

And now, we're busy talking about how terribly was the behavior of the UN.

Candidly, I have opportunities each day to discuss who messed up and how they messed up and how much trouble that has caused. I just don't go there. I ask where we are, where we need to go, and how do we get there. My mother was very similar. She could not stay in a room where gossiping was going on.

so, I think there are quite a few folks here who think they understand me, and do not. But again, I think those same people also subscribe to a fairly narrow policy path, and are not listening to the broader questions being raised.

When your only tool is a hammer, then all the problems will look like nails. You guys please stay real busy discussing the mistakes of the UN, or the mistakes of individual persons in the UN, and don't pay any attention to what else is going on.

And I apologize. I'm pretty disturbed right now. I jsut found out that a person in my industry, who I had a good relationship with, is probably now going to hold a grudge against me because he did not take a certain dispute to arbitration. He would have lost, and he knew that. So, I guess he's sore I did not exceed my authority and try to act as an arbitrator, which I am not. This was about a year ago, so I assume this guy will be a pouting little boy for the rest of our careers. And that disturbs me. Sorry for the harshness in my posts today. I'm sad.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Overpaid Slacker Are you actually reading what I write or just kind of skimming, looking for "points" to be contrary about?

Nobody could read everything you write - it is too hyperbolic, meandering and repetitive.

I expressly said EVERY democracy is invited. Please provide logical proof of how that "couldn't be any less democratic"

Because the premise you propose is undemocratic - it is exclusive rather than inclusive. Your entire argument misses the point of the UN - to invite ALL countries with ALL systems of governments to sit down and talk rather than fight. Allusions to corruption, wrongdoing, and bad decisions apply equally to all large and small organisations thoughout history - Great Britain, Enron, South Africa, Slovakia, Irag, the UN, even the US has had its share of stupid leaders, corrupt officials, and silly ideas. In the long run - the proper organisations outlast bad leaders and bad decisions - through democratic actions rather than autocratic bullying.

b/c such overbroad, conclusory statements, predicated on mischaracterizations of what I said just fascinate the hell out of me. Not the statements, but that someone can make them w/o thinking them through first ...

This is a pretty good description of your style of discussion.

You are right that the dirtbags are doing whatever they want now anyway ... so why give them the veneer of legitimization of the UN? Why allow them to pass UN "guidance" or "resolutions" calling for the extermination of Israel? Why give them a seat at the table at all?

Because the essence of democracy is in free speech and in the idea that the majority rules while the rights of the minority are protected. The fact that the US can withstand such silly "resolutions" and let them die in the open air for all to see while letting those with whom we disagree freely express themselves proves to the world the power and strength of a democratic organisation rather than its weakness. Your position flies in the face of democratic ideals because it does not allow for dissent from its ideological position and world view. It is, at its foundation, undemocratic.

There is no necessary "right" to participation in any organization-- There will be no right to participation in the LoD without the internal right in each country to self-determination

Without getting into the gritty details of "proving" one is a democracy - what happens when a recognizably self determining democratic election picks a theocratic slate of governing officials? Are they automatically tossed?

The UN invites itself in to a lot of places ... and makes quite a hash of the places it goes. Hmmmmm, I must have missed all your posts that were critical of the UN taking international action, b/c you're evidently so opposed to it in principle. Oh, come on, you know this is the same UN with Syria and Iran chairing committees on human rights ... the same UN where Sudan's vote has the same actual and moral authorityas Australia's. The same UN whose inviting itself into countries evidently doesn't bother you so much.

You have such inside and personal knowledge of everyone who works with the UN? Including all their motivations? Amazing. Are you psychic, as well? The idea that those who are representing these countries might actually be fighting the good fight from within - even in their own lands - at great personal risk - never occurs to you.

Or is it that it's OK for this corrupt relic of multi-culti idealism, that is fraught to the core with anti-freedom bile and idiocracies, to go into, say Rwanda or Bosnia or Congo, where it'd be evil and "unimaginably anti-Democratic" for a League of Democracies to go in to such places.

At last, a clear statement of purpose and meaning. You don't like "multi-culti idealism" and "idiocracies". And these represent anything different from your beliefs? I don't remember the US, or any other democracy bounding over to the African countries you list, to my regret. Why is that ? Especially after the successful military campaign in Bosnia and Slovakia - funny how that screw up isn't on the front pages anymore. I guess there isn't enough killing or maybe there's too much corruption?

As for your last statement, I can assure you that the US resents it when other countries meddle with our interests. Oh, but we're the ones who always have to understand the other guys and subordinate our interests to theirs ... or they'll cry.

Too bad. We have interests as well, and the primary difference between us and the rest of the world is, we can do something about them; the primary difference between us and the rest of the powers in history is, we do so very infrequently, with caution, and leave when we're finished. JP


Ah, the heady air of arrogance. It is so exhilirating.

"Infrequently" Chile, Cambodia, Vietnam, Guatemala, Cuba, Iran, Irag, Panama, Venezuela, Columbia, Philippines, Korea, Slovakia, Bosnia, Saudi Arabia, Grenada, Nicaragua, Suez Canal, Laos, Mexico - I am only counting adventures - not commenting on their wisdom, ideology, or success.

Name a single country we've left "when finished" (whatever that means) that doesn't have a military base or economic connection to the US. Again, my comment is directed to the logic and truth of your statement rather than the political or strategic value of the adventures themselves.

Cam -- again with the "feelings" stuff? You'd feel excluded? C'mon. Such nations, if they can be ascribed feelings, need to be given some emotional guidance and told to grow up.

Re:China this LoD is not formed for the purpose of getting China to change, so the fact that it doesn't is hardly a flaw. The UN isn't getting China to change, nor was it established for that purpose. So what?

I also didn't say anything about their having to abide by any edicts... There will still be other multinational agencies and organizations out there; other sandboxes in which they can play.

At the root of it, you believe that having more entities provides more "legitimacy"; I don't. I don't see how having Sudan vote to approve UN actions anywhere makes such actions more "legitimate", nor do I believe that getting Syria's "by-your-leave" to liberate Iraq is a moral prerequisite. In short, dirtbag countries do not have any legitimacy to give (in most circumstances); it's "nice" when they agree with us, but not in any way required.

I believe that the democratic nations (which, by and large are those that have the money, have the freedom, have the means and wherewithal to do things) should have their own organization, unfettered by the dirtbags and their carping and procedural impediments.

Keep the UN, fix it if you think you can, but why should there not be another entity in which, if you want a voice or a piece of the cake, you've got to be a democracy?

Supe -- No issues here; I write quickly while at work and frequently don't have the time to edit what I write, so I'm sure it comes off as... "unrelaxed." Oh well. You and I have managed so far to get on OK. :D

"Imperialistic" is overboard; "Hegemonic" is more accurate, and I've got no problem with hegemony.

If there's been one country "controlling" the UN... I don't know ... who in the SC has used their veto the most. Recently, with respect to many important matters, it's probably a toss-up between France and Russia.

Somehow, France's opposition to the liberation of Iraq became the "UN is against it" -- well, with a little help from the public statements of Kofi "What Oil For Food Scandal" Annan. You don't blame the "UN" for providing France an opportunity to stymie the US it hates so much -- and you don't blame the small minds in the French government for using the only possible tool they had in order to act as international spoiler, which has been their only role for more than 2 centuries. But that doesn't mean you continue to subject yourself to that forum, to continue to be thwarted in this bogus venue of "public" or "global" opinion.

Russia, OTOH is pretty much keeping the UN out of Sudan (which may not be a bad thing, given the UN's rape/prostitution/fraud extracurriculars). They've got China on their side too, so effectively no international pressure is being brought by the UN to stop genocide. The US is acting on its own to stop the slaughter -- but, you know, those "unilateral" actions of the US are just agenda-driven, "imperialistic" aggrandizement.

I understand "fix the problem, not the blame" theory; I prefer it. However, the UN has demostrated, time and again in the last 5 years that it is interested in fixing neither the problems nor the blame. It doesn't want to fix itself from within, in part, b/c many of its participants whose jobs/careers/identity/power exist solely b/c of the existence of the UN would find themselves "disenfranchised". Seriously, who has sufficient incentive in the UN to turn it upside down and break a lot of rice bowls?

And it doesn't have to fix itself b/c it's not answerable to anybody. Think about it for a second:

If the US says "you're all screwed up and you must heal thyself, oh World Physician" then the pinhead chorus strikes up with "Oh, the US is just anti-UN" or "The US is trying to influence the UN to its benefit, which by definition is to the detriment of everyone else". If the US then replies "No, we're not anti-UN, but we are anti-rape, anti-forced prostitution, anti-billions of dollars of fraud, anti-graft, anti-corruption and anti-incompetence" the response is something on the order of "lalalalala I can't hear you, you're just anti-UN lalalalala the US hates the UN lalalalala."

Why would a country like France want to fix the UN? The way it is right now, it's not like the UN squanders a lot of French money, and the UN's screw-ups help abominable France's actually imperialist actions in Ivory Coast and elsewhere stay under the radar. Plus, the way it's structured now, the UN provides France with the perfect forum to thwart and vex the US while taking no responsiblity for anything. France can maintain its perennial petulent adolescence, with a Veto. Great!

Who else is going to hold the UN's feet to the fire to change? Seriously. Iran, Syria, North Korea, Sudan, Mozambique, Benin? Who? If you know, please let me know. I don't believe it can be fixed; I think the little tweaks that Annan has grudgingly accepted are just rearranging the Titanic's deck chairs.

JDSKI-
Yeah, long posts ... but if you're going to respond, shouldn't you read them? And I don't mean Fisking, which is about the lowest-brow "technique", now avoided even by Fisk himself out of embarrassment, I'm told.

When has democracy been all-inclusive? Why should it be? We don't allow minors, felons or non-citizens to vote... does that mean we're "exclusive" in some pejorative sense? I don't believe so. We simply recognize that some are unfit or simply not entitled to vote; therefore are unfit and not entitled to guide or direct our actions through their vote. Of course they can still run their mouths... but "free speech" is not the only pillar of democracy as you hyperbolically aver.

And I understand the "point" as you put it of the UN, in fact, if I didn't "get" the "point" I wouldn't be advocating a different approach. I don't think inclusivity for its own sake ... as an end in itself ... is a worthwhile endeavor. And it's not worth sacrificing things like efficacy, answerability and action for.

As for membership/ousting procedures ... there's not automatic outster -- that'd be, well... undemocratic (gee, that's a really big, broad, open-ended word). Something like the members voting might be involved...:rolleyes:

I'll skip to the end, as my responses to your masturbatory interstitial rhetorical questions would likely be involved and overwhelm your brevity and style sensibilties; which standards you don't exactly meet. But it's probably good to have ideals for others that you don't meet; that's got to be exhilirating and do wonders for self-image.

I'll simply say that you've missed a few countries in a timeline that covers more than 150 years. So, yes, that is relatively few given the timeline. When we're done, we don't occupy -- not even our former enemies. We frequently rebuild ... ask Germany, Italy, Japan, Afghanistan or any of the others.

One bright spot however. This ... statement ... sets a new standard: " Name a single country we've left "when finished" (whatever that means) that doesn't have a military base or economic connection to the US."

Well, as every country in the world has an economic connection to the US, it's a pretty dumb question, no? If you confuse (i) "economic connection" or (ii) our maintaining military bases in certain countries with the permission (and often at the request) of host countries with "occupation" you're not very good at definitional distinctions and our further discourse would be meaningless.

JP

at least someone understands hegemony.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1109272379.jpg

Is it picture time again?
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1109272760.jpg

The footprint of the American Chicken? Nice, kach. :D

JP

Slacker...

Really.....The peace symbol is an honorable one, albeit overused by some a few decades back. The premise of reason and logic and, yes, even appealing to the emotional, rather than "ready, fire, aim" is certainly one worthy of consideration in all but the most serious of cases.

I don't disagree with some of you premises, but I have to agree that sometimes you resort to hyperbole to make your point.

There is an old saying "You can catch more files with honey that you can with vinegar".

I offer the above with respect. I may not agree with all that you say, but I will defend your right to say it.

Not my words.


" You media pansies may squeal and may squirm, But a fighting man knows that the way to confirm that some jihadist bastard is truly dead, is a brain-tappin' round fired into his head.

To hell with you wimps from your Ivy League schools, sittin' far from the war tellin' me about rules. And preaching to me your wrong-headed contention that I should observe the Geneva Convention.

Yeah, I'll last through this fight and send his ass away to his fat ugly virgins while I'm still in play. If you journalist wienies think that's cold, cruel and crass, then pucker up sweeties. Kiss a fighting man's ass. "

Wow.

Thanks for the sincere opinions, Bob. Hyperbole is one of the tools of the trade, so to speak, and it's not always appreciated, but I use hyperbole to provoke a reaction -- that's what it's for: "exaggeration used for emphasis or effect."

It's no excuse, but I do have to write what I write very quickly, given my windows of opportunity at work. Sometimes I'll go back and re-read some of what I've written and think "well, that would come across a bit strong..." or, more frequently "whoa, skipped a segue there..." and "enough parenthetical asides, already." Oh well. These are brain-dumps for refinement at a later time, if necessary. Sorry I can't give y'all my A game all the time, but I reserve the A game for my employer, who pays me for my A game, keeping me in Porsche parts. :D

I'm not trying to catch flies; and I'm beyond believing you can change minds. Stack up your best arguments and I'll stack up mine; let's see who wins. Maybe arguments' "winning" and "losing" strike some as primitive concepts, but I am a Darwinist, so it's how I believe things are. Better ideas succeed and grow, others atrophy. You figure out which are better by testing them. Hard. :D The sooner you recognize a weak idea and cull it from the herd, the less damage it does and the fewer of the more susceptible minds it has a chance to get a hold of.

Cam, Supe and I frequently disagree on matters and I've got no problem with strongly presented, even strongly worded, arguments. I do have a problem with the pseudo-smart, "mantra" arguments and won't suffer those. So don't bring them in if you don't want them smacked; keep them in the sterile glass case in your den where reality can't hurt them. I don't mean "you" personally, Bob.

As for the disagree w/ what you say, defend your right to say it stuff -- that's fine. I've heard a number of bespectacled sophomores standing in class or on lawns declaring their intellectual cojones in Voltaire's words. But, frankly I don't need you or anyone else to defend me or my rights; I can defend myself and probably do a better job at it than you can (no offense). What I am interested in are your responses to my arguments.

I do agree that the peace symbol was perverted by moonbats a generation or so ago. But a symbol is really only as good as what most people take it to mean, no?

JP

Ahh symbolism. . .

"B52 baby, way up in the sky. . . " (The CULT baby!)

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1109279163.gif

"All we are sayyyyying, is give War a chance..."

JP

Haha - love it John.

JP

I'd have a bit more sympathy for that accusation if you didn't have a President who unashamedly acts on "feelings". Besides, if feelings didn't matter, why would the US bother to try and win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people? Or send Bush off to Europe to mend the fences?

Countries have feelings too ;) We're all people.

I just don't think it would serve any useful purpose, and it certainly wouldn't have much of a mandate to do anything. I thought of it after my last post, but it is ironic that you can only complain about the UN's efforts in China because:

a) China is a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention (they wouldn't to a LoD convention); and
b) the UN has an office there (can you imagine the LoD having an office there).

Besides, what's the point in having a bloated, corrupt organisation (the UN) AND another less bloated (but prob still pretty fat), less corrupt LoD.

I say - Fix the UN. Make its internal mechanisms more democratic. Make prevention of corruption a primary goal.

Slack

I don't think we are really that far apart, but in my line of business, I have had training in something called "conflict resolution", which forces me to read "between the lines" of what someone says or writes, to separate the fact from the feelings. It is, perhaps the reason I find some trial lawyers so dispicable since they prey on emotion rather than facts to sway people to their side. Right or wrong take second place to winning.

As for trying to change people's opinions, why bother? If the individual is predisposed to a certain way of thinking and is consistent in that opinion, the best you can do is arrive at a stalemate, agreeing (in a civil manner) to disagree. Better ideas DO grow, but usually quite slowly, and are never enhanced by the stalemate of useless dialog. Go forward, implement ideas where you can and show by example that they are better than what is currently out there.

Just one person's opinion.

As for "feelings", allow me a hypothetical: I'd read recently that a strong majority of citizens in several EU states support the death penalty when given the opportunity to express their feelings (don't pin me down on numbers, but it was more than 60% of citizens in each of a majority of EU countries -- I'm not fabricating this, I promise).

Yet their "elected" representatives at a national and EU level continue to decry the US for its death penalty and fulminate about how much more sophisticated Europe is for not having a death penalty. Whose "feelings" are we to listen to here (I say "none", but you're wrapped up in accommodating feelings): the people's expressed feelings, or their elite masters' feelings?

If you're going to inflate the term "feelings" to encompass every possible sentiment (such as Iraqis' "hearts and minds") then it's a double-edged sword. If feelings have such scope, then they have absolute primacy. One guy whose feelings could potentially be hurt should/would be enough to derail any action, at any time, by any one. We all get held hostage to the lowest common emotional denominator. But then, being hostage to the lowest common denominator is a tenet of Socialism, so why am I surprised? :D

If you think Bush is in Europe to mend fences ... wow, I need to know what you're on, so I can avoid it. If I was that susceptible to suggestion, my home would be full of crap I bought on TV!

Ask Putin how mended the US-Russian fences get; notice how mended US-French relations become... Who needs who more? France or the US; Belgium or the US; Germany or the US; the EU or the US?

If the fences hadn't already been mended by their contrition, W wouldn't have gone. To W, international relations is not a function of "let's see how many treaties we can sign, and how many visits we can pay" like it was during the lip-biting, phony contrition, "love me love me love me", "what do the latest polls say that I should say?" Interregnum.

There is plenty of International Law outside of that on which the UN has put its imprimatur -- and more created every month, whether on a bilateral or multilateral basis. Saying that the UN is necessary in order to have (or enforce) international law is like saying you can't have (or enforce) dress codes without Brooks Brothers.

If the UN goes away (I know it won't, but a guy can dream, can't he?!?) the conventions which have its name in them do not evaporate -- they're not binding b/c the UN says they are for God's sake, they're binding b/c the signatories have agreed to be bound. It is a volitional act on behalf of a country to be bound to these things; and it's not only the UN that can enforce them. In fact, given the UN's dismal record, perhaps it really should be somebody other than the UN. Privatize it!

So much of your objections boil down to a misunderstanding -- I'm not saying that the LoD would hoover up all responsibility for international law, global policing, etc. etc. Just that a LoD could promote the interests of democracies -- have multilateral trade agreements among democracies, for example.

How such an organization necessarily means that all other areas of international law (such as Refugee Conventions) cease to exist or would never be worked out by another body/panel/organization is beyond me. The UN didn't invent international law, and international law got on fine without a UN for centuries.

Overpaid - I have the ultimate respect for your understanding of this situation and heartily agree that the UN and its cronies within are as corrupt as an uncontrolled organisation possibly can be.
But what escapes me is how the rest of us who do agree can change things via this forum?
Discussion is a great exercise, it is educating us and as here is allowing facts previously unknown to be aired.
BUT.....
Where and how and through who do we get things changed in the UN - they seem to be ungovernable.
Whats the project plan?