Slack..

Here, in this country we are hypocrates too, well at least some of the elected officials. There are majorities that want certain things and the gumment acts in totally the opposite direction. Granted, sometimes the gumment is correct, such as equal rights, but they are more often than not in conflict with the wishes of the electorate and only mouth the right words come election time. And, there are even inconsistencies within the electorate that are stunning. Anti abortion and death sentences. I take no side on either issue, just point out the contradiction in the belief of some concerning something as fundamental as the value of human life.

Its government not gumment.
And while all this is interesting discussion - how does it change a thing in the real world?

Personally, I'm beyond powerless - I'm not only irrelevant person number 3 million out of 4 million, but I'm there in irrelevant country number 200 out of 300 or so.

I just like arguing.

Where was I? Oh yeah - JP. I actually more or less agree with a lot of what you say. Or I think it is down to a sort of fundamental difference of opinion and ideology .... however, I still can't understand this:

How? I mean really how. How does one promote democracies above others? I still can't see a use, and I'm surprised that you do.

I'm also not so sure on the death penalty statistic. I did a (very) quick search and the first poll I found (ABC News) suggested that while around 60% of American's favoured the death penalty, less than half favoured it if life imprisonment w/out parole was used as an alternative.

Oh, and one more thing:

Bush was elected precisely because a significant proportion of your population are susceptible to suggestion (and presumably have a home full of crap bought on TV). He deals with his own populace exactly how he deals with the world.

Hey Stevo...What difference how we spell it? It's all the same....I know the proper word, but gumment is how most people pronounce it anyway!!!

Things in the real world change slowly; ideas are not always quick to catch on. Given that, they will change the more people get involved and demand those changes. It may take a decade or more, but it can happen. I may be a card carrying pessimest, but I do believe in change.

Cheers!!!

Cam -- Still think Bush is there to mend fences? Check this out:Putin loses his smile after lecture from Bush on democracy.

Damn, I'm good! :D

As for interests of democracies, mutual security, human rights, disaster response, etc. There would be any number of areas where it will "overlap" areas "covered" by the UN... (hopefully with a view to taking them over and administering such areas better ... again, this is a dream). Which, in come cases amounts to administering them at all.

In large part, the democracies fund the UN's operations anyway (esp. the US) so why not take those funds from the UN and establish an entity that will put them to use and be effective? I've got no serious issue with the US putting hundreds of millions of dollars to an international agency for the betterment of the world; what I have a problem with is how the UN (and moreso its dirtbag constituents) abuse that money and the authority and mandate we've provided. Oh, and the staggering self-righteous ingratitude rubs me the wrong way too.

The UN has become so bloated, "covering" so much ground, so many issues, that it's become its own number one priority. It exists not to do the things w/ which its charged, but just to exist; like a sentient parasite whose #1 goal is self-protection, to the exclusion, if necessary, if the things it was supposed to be doing that made it "necessary" to create in the first place.

As for the death penalty thing; as I said, I read it a while ago (in a couple of different sources) and I'm not making it up to make a point. Whether you believe me or not, however, the point is that if you're beholden to feelings, where does it end? Heck, where does it begin -- do you listen to the Mullahs in Iran as the "duly constituted government of the Islamic Republic of Iran" for their "feelings" or do you listen to the people protesting in the street for freedom and democracy? It seems you can strategically select those people/parties whose "feelings" are going to make your case. The government and the "people" seldom have the same "feelings."

A last point: if Americans were that gullible, that susceptible to suggestion (w/o any supporting factual predicate), Kerry would be in the White House... :D

JP

EDIT -- Two quick things; first, I asked Supe for 5 things the UN does right and that we need the UN and only the UN to do. Can you come up w/ 5? Also, I set forth in a response to Supe why I believe the UN is not susceptible to being "fixed". In short, it has no incentive to fix itself and it's not answerable to any "outside" entity with the authority to fix it. Pls. read that stuff and tell me how you think the UN can be fixed.

I think the UN could be fixed if a number of the democracies (I agree the democracies undoubtedly contribute the most) stopped being little *****es - this means France and the US, mostly - and tried to work together. It isn't the UNs job to prefer those countries who are already amongst the "haves"...

Also, you said:

what I have a problem with is how the UN (and moreso its dirtbag constituents) abuse that money and the authority and mandate we've provided

You've got the wrong attitude to it! They provide the authority and mandate too. We all do. How can an LoD operate effectively without that mandate/authority of all countries? I don't think it can (let's just disagree).

Name five things? Too hard! Its summer here, Saturday, and about 90 degrees :D

You must believe that there are five things the UN could do to your satisfaction or you wouldn't suggest the LoD. Whether they've done 5 things right? Dunno - probably. Five things right that couldn't have been done another way - probably not - but I'd be able to put the same accusation against the LoD, because it is an impossible criteria to fit.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Overpaid Slacker
I believe we ought to scrap the UN -- or move it to Brussels or Pyongyang -
- and establish an organization of democracies.[/QUOTE/



I just got a call from the White House. Bush has just finalized the conjunction of Wall St., London, and Hong Kong to manage the next job after the military cleans house. All capital will be insured by the 30 member LoD group. Expected ROI average over the 20yr project life is 43%yr. Each project will be modeled around 95% employment of entire workforce with 6mo. Discussions of a trial run of prevailing mgt steps may include Putin's group as a subcontractor for laying the fiber optic lines in Afg. Bush was instructed to face Putin mano vs mano in order to tell him that he and his Finance Minister has 3mo to buff up their act if they want to maintain creditability in the world financial mkts. This means that Putin will have to concentrate his resources domestically instead of wasting time and bucks on geo expansion. Mkt trading is expected to be liquid within 5yrs. Market volatility in these project securities will be somewhat neutralized with a basket of 4 projects. A group of former advert consultants to the tobacco industry will handle world opinion. Their claim to fame was informing customers how dangerous and life threatening the tobacco products are, then suggesting that they Don't buy the products. They have been consistent cash winners for the past 25yr in the world stage. It seems that it has been agreed that Wall St would develop the project securities and London will manage the initial market introduction. Hong Kong will manage all Asian capital.

go figure.

J.P. :
I have followed your shallow retoric; you are truly an embarrassment to the human race.
http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/pain30.gif http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/pain30.gif http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/paddel.gif http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/a_pukey.gif

Anyone who can get the phrase “masturbatory interstitial rhetorical questions” into a semi-serious discussion of foreign policy has a silly mind and we certainly need more silly minds discussing the issues as far as I’m concerned. I had to google “Fisking” - I thought it a reference to your position on baseball players. I wasn’t aware of it but from what I could gather it seems a reasonable way to respond to multiple points in the written conversational style that has evolved on the web since it is impossible to have the normal give and take of face to face conversation. Anyway, no harm, no foul.

We disagree on a definition for democracy. I believe it a self determined social order that is inclusive to all citizens and protective of their rights. The fact a citizen has temporarily lost the right to vote does not change the meaning of democracy. It only changes the rights of that individual. Free speech guides the votes of others and is why it is #1 on the Hit Parade of Rights. Democracy is inclusive – that is self-evident and unalienable.

Regarding membership – choose a preferred ouster method – and respond to the question: do you see membership as fluid and ideologically driven? For that matter what democracies do you see as members? Do you have any comment about an institutions ability to withstand temporarily poor leadership or individually corrupt actions?

Your comment about “economic connection” is on point and my idea was poorly expressed. I wasn’t referring to treaties or WW2. Another thread might discuss how voluntary they can be when a country’s citizens can’t vote.

The US has a long history of covert and overt actions to change leaders, regimes, and governments. This list is just off the top of my head. These actions cannot be characterized as “infrequent” or selfless, as you infer because they are often designed to protect national and corporate economic interests rather than to preserve some country’s resources or the self–determination rights of its citizens. Too often the wealth is limited to elite that mouth platitudes while raping the country. Military installations are in place to protect those economic and strategic interests – sometimes at invitation and sometimes by force.

Let’s get back to your original idea – you think the UN has no legitimacy and should go away. Some reasons for your position are the corrupt or criminal actions of individuals within it and other reasons are because some members do not share ideological, economic, strategic, or cultural goals. In its place you propose a LoD. Is this to be some kind of NATO like “action force” designed to defend or impose the needs of democracies on other countries? Or is it just a loose federation of treaties and agreements between the like-minded? This isn’t so clear. You’re not clear on anything but your hatred of the UN.

I believe you ignore the point of the UN. It is a means for all nations on earth to discuss and resolve differences. It is through engagement and long term strategy that real decisive change is made. This worked in the Cold War. The UN provides a means for engagement. It should remain in place for that purpose and the US should continue its support.