I’m starting here because this one is so easy . . . .
Originally posted by Oblivion
I just want to point out here that if the UN did have military backup, they would be even bigger hypocrites than you say they are.
Umm . . . what? Something like how if a government had a police force, it would be hypocritical?
Of course the UN must allow China to be on the board. Do you seriously think that anyone should decide what China should do without, you know, consulting them? That would be absurd!
This is a little confusing . . . you know, at any given time, most countries are not on the security counsel. Further, consultation does not imply voting. In fact, if you are going to tell someone what they should be doing, you by the rules of intelligence will not be allowing them to vote. That would be like allowing a criminal a vote at his own sentencing. So, let China speak . . . but it is idiotic to give a non-democratic state a veto in a body that is supposed to represent the security interests of the world. It is pretty clear that the Chinese government couldn’t give a damn about the security of the Chinese, much less the rest of us.
I agree their voting system isn’t the best in the world (ironically), but they do try.
When? Would they be trying when Cuba is voted back into the human rights commission? Of course the voting makes no sense - it isn’t proportional to anything. When the American delegate votes, he gets one vote for America. When the French delegate votes, he gets one vote for France. When the Cuban delegate votes, he gets one vote for Castro. So, 300 million Americans get one vote, and Castro, by himself, gets one vote . . . great.
Without the UN, a lot more wars would have happened needlessly. The UN is primarily a place where you can ask a nation to stop sucking before you threaten to blow them up. I shudder to think what the world would be like without a place where representatives of the world can confer and decide on resolutions.
Indeed, it would be impossible for nations to confer through, like, ambassadors.
And furthermore, even if they aren’t actually enforced by the UN themselves, the resolutions are simply laws: if you break them, the UN will know, and then the world will know, and certain member nations have carte blanche to blow you up.
Yes, but the UN rejects the attempts by member nations to enforce these “laws.” So, if by “carte blanche” you mean “no right,” then yes, nations have “carte blanche” to act on violated resolutions.
That’s much better than “Oh, I percieve you as evil, you should change.” WMD my ass… No matter what anyone says, the US has no more right to have those than Iraq or North Korea or Switzerland.
Wait . . . do you honestly feel that the world is not more dangerous when states like North Korea or Iraq have WMD’s (or slingshots, for that matter)? And who said anything about rights? How can a national government even have rights? Tell me, please, where these rights are enumerated. Although in fairness you are correct. The U.S. has no more right to these weapons than anyone else, because no one has a right to them. The U.S. retains, for a number of reasons, the privilege of owning such weapons, and it is a privilege that should not be advanced to everyone.
How can you say that America is the only place on Earth where you are defined as American because of how you think? You’re basically saying that the rightist view of the world is the American view, which is false. That’s like me saying that only thee people who voted for the guy I like are truly Canadian. If you are born in America, you are American, end of story. If you don’t like what your government is doing, and make your opinion heard, you are still American, if not more so (try doing that in China). If you think your country is full of lazy people, you are still American, albeit a bit of an elitist prick. Only if you truly reject the founding values of your country do you become un-American, or even anti-American.
So, which is it? American if born in America, or American if observant of founding values? Again, understand first, then argue. The founding principles of America were “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and many of the individuals recieving the title of “un-American” reject these principles. So, LPFab says that you must hold these values to be an American, and you say that rejecting them while being an American citizen makes you un-American . . . I guess that you guys agree, and you just didn’t realize it.
To say otherwise is an outright lie, and a laughable one at that. Trying to define ‘what Americans should think’ is completely sad, and much closer to the Nazi mentality than the UN will ever be. What’s next? What ‘real Americans’ should watch on TV? What they should wear? What music they should like? Poppycock! These standards are absurd, demeaning and most importantly unfounded. Where is it written down what it takes to be an American?
It isn’t about “what Americans should think.” LPFab wasn’t saying that if you are an American citizen you should feel a certain way. He was arguing that being truly American entails more than just (and might, in fact, be totally separate from) your place of birth or your citizenship; that Americans are defined by a shared belief in the three founding values of America.
OOOOOOOH, RIGHT, THE CONSTITUTION!
That little grubetty piece of paper with laws and amendments and such. Sit down, read it, and tell me where it says that Americans must be rigthists. Tell me if the word ‘Capitalism’ is even in there. I may not be American, but I know what freedom is, and associating people’s political views to their respective ammounts of patriotism, and thus their belonging to their homeland is a step in the wrong direction.
It does not say that Americans must be rightists. Capitalism is in there, though, a couple of times, actually. Notably the reverence for property rights contained in the Bill of Rights, but elsewhere as well. It is true that the word “capitalism” is not used, but capitalism is the only economic system that respects property.
And you are twisting LPFab’s argument in a truly disgusting manner. He never said anything about “belonging.” He never said anything (in this thread) about patriotism. You’ve moved so far into absurdity that I’m really no longer sure how to respond to this.
Further, if you question capitalism and then claim to know what feedom is you’ve slipped into intellectual Oblivion.
So, in closing…
I love this land, I love this country, and I AM CANADIAN!
Thank God
I think that I’ll just throw this on the end . . .
The problem with the United Nations isn’t the united, it’s the nations. Just look at the scum that occupy seats, look at who they really represent when they vote, and look at the disgusting excuses for resolutions that get passed. The body is rotten. It has become a place where the governments of nations with no economic value or military strength, and often no real legitimacy, have the power to hold the world hostage for their own selfish ends. The fact that anyone in the U.S. (or any nation that believes in the principle of a representative government of the people) takes the UN seriously is truly disturbing.