EPTIraq - Page 2
| Blogs > RebelHeart |
|
Texas
Germany2388 Posts
| ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
| ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
On September 01 2007 15:16 HeadBangaa wrote: What good is an international governing body when it relies on volunteer compliance? Should only the law-abiding countries be imposed upon? The faults are similar to poorly-implemented gun laws, with the same trap-doors. I don't think the US should allow a dysfunctional institution to influence her. An international governing body is as useful as national governing bodies. The only difference is scale. When Congress passes a law, it uses police forces to enforce it. UN peacekeepers serve in that utility. I don't understand why you suggest only law-abiding countries can be imposed upon. When an outside influence threatens the US, negotiations are initiated, and if that fails, Congress declares war. There is nothing to prevent the UN from doing the same. It doesn't take great imagination to come to the conclusion that the UN is as effective as the member-nations make it. With a veto system in place, the UN can only serve the combined interests of the veto powers, and non-veto power members must hope those interests coincide with their own. If the UN is ineffectual, it is because its member nations wish it to be. Its not unable to enforce its standards, but unwilling. Bush II may lament that characteristic, but I think its perfectly acceptable; its democracy, even if only in a limited way. Remove the veto system, and the UN more fully resembles a democratic organization and can only be resisted by overwhelming strength. The nations capable of resisting UN influence are quite easy to identify: the US and possibly China, though I strongly doubt that even the US-- despite its unmatched military strength-- would want to defy the will of a UN coalition once all diplomatic options had been exhausted. Rogue states-- countries that ignore international law-- must by their nature be strong or face severe consequences. Dissolving the UN would not remove any perceived inadequacies in the application of international law. It would destroy the capacity to create law. It would more fully subject weaker nations to the mercy of the strong and make international cooperation and assistance more difficult. Dissolving the UN to improve the enforcement of international law would be like dissolving the US government to improve the performance of FEMA. Its a fundamentally flawed attitude. If you want the UN to work better, dedicate the resources to improving it and remove the processes that prevent majority will from being executed. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On September 01 2007 16:11 Phantom wrote: Right...so who or what is going to eradicate these followers of corrupt ideology? What FIRE are you talking about? You've just rejected the idea of any ONE nation doing it or any groups of nations therefore WHAT is going to eradicate said evils? Good questions. Modern culture hesitates to label any ideology as inferior. But if all people could agree on basic humanitarian standards, and avoid political abuse of international governance, then I would be inclined to say that a collective of nations would be charged with enforcement. And just as the atomic bomb ultimately saved more lives than it took, so would a cleansing of inferior ideology. Unfortunately, relativism and neo-tolerance are enthusiastically embraced by the current and incoming generation. Consequently, there exists no such objective reference, and therefore, nobody is qualified to police the world. Full circle with my original post. My point is that the 'naïve solutions' do not work, and the viable solutions are too 'progressive' to be compatible with contemporary mores. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On September 01 2007 16:40 Tadzio00 wrote: An international governing body is as useful as national governing bodies. The only difference is scale. When Congress passes a law, it uses police forces to enforce it. UN peacekeepers serve in that utility. I don't understand why you suggest only law-abiding countries can be imposed upon. When an outside influence threatens the US, negotiations are initiated, and if that fails, Congress declares war. There is nothing to prevent the UN from doing the same. It doesn't take great imagination to come to the conclusion that the UN is as effective as the member-nations make it. With a veto system in place, the UN can only serve the combined interests of the veto powers, and non-veto power members must hope those interests coincide with their own. If the UN is ineffectual, it is because its member nations wish it to be. Its not unable to enforce its standards, but unwilling. Bush II may lament that characteristic, but I think its perfectly acceptable; its democracy, even if only in a limited way. Remove the veto system, and the UN more fully resembles a democratic organization and can only be resisted by overwhelming strength. The nations capable of resisting UN influence are quite easy to identify: the US and possibly China, though I strongly doubt that even the US-- despite its unmatched military strength-- would want to defy the will of a UN coalition once all diplomatic options had been exhausted. Rogue states-- countries that ignore international law-- must by their nature be strong or face severe consequences. Dissolving the UN would not remove any perceived inadequacies in the application of international law. It would destroy the capacity to create law. It would more fully subject weaker nations to the mercy of the strong and make international cooperation and assistance more difficult. Dissolving the UN to improve the enforcement of international law would be like dissolving the US government to improve the performance of FEMA. Its a fundamentally flawed attitude. If you want the UN to work better, dedicate the resources to improving it and remove the processes that prevent majority will from being executed. I disagree. A domestic government has infinitely-more cohesion than an international body, which loosely couples a group of nations based on their common interests. These common interests inevitably collide, and as we have seen, nations do not hesitate to place their own needs above the collective. This is not just true for the US, as we have seen France use the veto in political maneuverings, as well. Additionally, there is a subjective commitment to the agendas of the collective with respect to each individual nation, as we've seen from the heavily-imbalanced troop commitments. I don't see how you can say the only difference is "scale". That is a very problematic viewpoint and will lead to fallacious conclusions; rethink it. I'm not saying an international body is not going to work. It just won't work until there is a more unifying theme, other than ephemeral common interests. Oh, and I said that only law-abiding nations will be imposed upon, because the UN has shown that it will not backup it's sanctions when they are violated, else they would have burned Baghdad 10-15 years ago. Thus, there is no fear of force, and no vehicle of enforcement. | ||
Liquid`HayprO
Iraq1230 Posts
| ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
On September 01 2007 17:03 HeadBangaa wrote: I disagree. A domestic government has infinitely-more cohesion than an international body, which loosely couples a group of nations based on their common interests. These common interests inevitably collide, and as we have seen, nations do not hesitate to place their own needs above the collective. This is not just true for the US, as we have seen France use the veto in political maneuverings, as well. Additionally, there is a subjective commitment to the agendas of the collective with respect to each individual nation, as we've seen from the heavily-imbalanced troop commitments. I don't see how you can say the only difference is "scale". That is a very problematic viewpoint and will lead to fallacious conclusions; rethink it. I'm not saying an international body is not going to work. It just won't work until there is a more unifying theme, other than ephemeral common interests. Oh, and I said that only law-abiding nations will be imposed upon, because the UN has shown that it will not backup it's sanctions when they are violated, else they would have burned Baghdad 10-15 years ago. Thus, there is no fear of force, and no vehicle of enforcement. K. We disagree. Allow me to attempt to illustrate my position. A proper allegory for the UN is the US. Consider: States (nations) act according to their own self interest based on artificially created, but universally recognized geographic borders. They pass and enforce state laws (national laws), and weigh taxes as they see fit. So they have a level of autonomy. They submit to the federal government (UN) and federal laws (international laws) guided by the principles of a Constitution (UN Charter) to facilitate and take advantage of mutual protections and benefits. Using progressive taxes (UN assessments), they cooperate to supply the federal government with funding to operate as well as manpower to fill roles in government (Ambassadors at the UN assembly), military (UN peacekeepers), and federal law enforcement (UN observers). When comparing the characteristics of the US government and the UN, the significant differences between the two governing bodies can be pinned down to scale, number of official languages, the fact that the original 13 US states can't veto the rest of the US, and the age of the governing bodies in question. As far as I'm concerned, cohesion shouldn't matter in a democratic government, only in an authoritarian one. US Congressmen and Senators from different states disagree on bills all the time. If cohesion is so important to governance, why hasn't the US erupted into another civil war? And I don't think you should use the Iraq sanctions to prove your point. Regardless of whether the sanctions were absolute, they were so effective that they left Iraq's population impoverished and its government without the means to defend its population against foreign aggressors. A good example of an ineffectual UN would be the number of UN Council Resolutions leveed against Israel that are unenforced. Why are they unenforced? Oh, because the US vetoed nearly every one of them as they came before the General Assembly. Get rid of the veto and the UN's effectiveness will be dramatically improved. | ||
micronesia
United States24799 Posts
On September 01 2007 14:49 Tadzio00 wrote: Except... Iraq wasn't "their turf." Al Qaeda's turf was Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The US is in Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia is an ally in the region, so... the US fights them in Iraq? w.t.f. There's not logic there, brother. Fine I won't explain what I mean since you obviously aren't interested. | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24799 Posts
On September 01 2007 23:30 Tadzio00 wrote: Why should I be interested in the completely unconvincing "well, Iraq's a good location to stage a war that has nothing to do with Iraq" argument? I said I can explain something, and should be able to in a couple of sentences. If you want to be closed minded I won't stop you. | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24799 Posts
On September 01 2007 23:47 Tadzio00 wrote: I'd be happy to read your explanation if it includes some recognition of the audacious levels of narcissistic jingoism required to accept the premise as sane policy. Uh anyway, the thinking goes, Al Qaeda doesn't want there to be a US presence in their region. They also are interested in Saudi Arabia. However, our presence in Iraq means we are in the way of their unrelated affairs in Saudi Arabia, so they seriously want us out of Iraq. These problems we create for them have the likely effect of distracting them from terror outside of their region, but that is debatable. | ||
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
On September 01 2007 16:40 fusionsdf wrote: Arent you supposed to get a new account? Mani wasn't happy  | ||
|
TesisMech
Peru688 Posts
| ||
| ||
