Posted: 10/24/2002 12:51:16 AM EDT
|
GW Bush is starting to be really annoyed of the "PC game" the UN is playing: Russia says no (but I think that with current facts very soon the NO will be switched in a YES...) China says NO, France is saying NO, lets change the resolution draft, no it is still not good... and like that ad libitum. I ask: 1)Can USA retire from UN membership? 2) according to your point of view, what would be direct and indirect consequences of this act? There is a precedent: The Society of Nations, build after the WW I, with the aim to avoid another world conflict. In the eve of the WW II, USA and Germany retired their membership, and this organization lost its importance and was disbanded... |
|
1. I dont see why not. 2. I think quitting the UN would be an even bigger headache than staying there. The world is harping on the US for acting "unilaterialy", without their consent (who says we need their consent in the first place? Is it written somewhere? Arent we a sovereign independent nation?). Leaving the UN would send them into orbit. I would love seeing that, but it wont happen. |
|
My take on it is, the US can quit the UN any time it wants, if it really wants. The result would be that the UN would become irrelevant, and with the lack of US funds (over 50% of all UN funds come from the US), the UN would find itself incapable of fielding so many "peace keeping" operations. Its influence would rapidly decay. The US would gain full use of a really nice piece of real estate in NYC. So what are we waiting for? |
|
By the way Paolo, I want to thank you for being on the right side with Israel and America. I appreciate it a lot. We would be there for you if you needed us, You Canadians, Australians, Dutch, Brits, Danes and Finns here? Thank you for being on our side. Believe me, I would gladly be there for you. |
|
My opinion, if I was American, is that I would push to reform UN admittal requirements under the explicit threat to quit UN membership. In the Preamble od US Constitution, for Americans are affirmed a set of values that, imho, aren't only valid for US citiziens, but are UNIVERSAL values for all humanity: [i] "... establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity... "[/i] Any country that is unable to respect this parameters can't be a UN member. It is unacceptable to see countries like Syria, o Iran or Iraq seated in a Assembly and to take decision concerning other countries, even if more advanced and respecteful of human rights than them. Most of the Western countries, instead, would have the opportunity to join the New UN from the beginning. If not, as a "supposed" American citizien, I would like to see were the UN can go without US taxpayer money, without US peacekeeping forces or US nationbuilding forces, without the importance of the last superpower in the world. According to me, from a non US point of view, the answer is that the UN would not survive: Nations like UK, France and Russia would start to rule, and any other nation that can't bear the game would have only two option: to join the US block or the UN block. From one side, even if imperfect, there is a guarantee of freedom. On the UN block, I see only a concerning fog of infringed rights... The only thing I am really concerned about USA laws is the death penalty. Nothing will convince me to say that is right and fair. But with all the rest, paraphrasating a sentence of one of your greatest Presidents, J.F. Kennedy ("ich bin berliner, I am a berliner"), "I AM AN AMERICAN"... |
|
I think the state has the right to take a criminal's life, but the numerous cases of innocent people being sentenced to death and being exonerted at the last minute, makes me wonder how many innocent people have been wrongly executed and how many innocent people are scheduled for death now. For that reason only, and perhaps the high legal costs involved in appealling capital crime cases, I too am against the death penalty. But that's it. There is no reason why the state can kill people from another nation in war and not kill its own people who violate the most sacrosanct laws. Theoretically, if a criminal could be abolutely proven guilty of a capital crime, I would have no qualms about his sentence being death. |
|
Quoted: GW Bush is starting to be really annoyed of the "PC game" the UN is playing: Russia says no (but I think that with current facts very soon the NO will be switched in a YES...) China says NO, France is saying NO, lets change the resolution draft, no it is still not good... and like that ad libitum. I ask: 1)Can USA retire from UN membership? Only in the dreams of true American patriots. 2) according to your point of view, what would be direct and indirect consequences of this act? We would get some of our soveriegnty back. Right now, many US laws and regulations on the books, (particularly the environmental ones), are a direct result of UN "treaty law". There is a precedent: The Society of Nations, build after the WW I, with the aim to avoid another world conflict. In the eve of the WW II, USA and Germany retired their membership, and this organization lost its importance and was disbanded... Yes, it was called "The League of Nations". It was the FIRST attempt at world socialist government... |
|
Quoted: By the way Paolo, I want to thank you for being on the right side with Israel and America. I appreciate it a lot. We would be there for you if you needed us, You Canadians, Australians, Dutch, Brits, Danes and Finns here? Thank you for being on our side. Believe me, I would gladly be there for you. Ha! What makes you think that because some UN Diplomat to the UN who comes from, say, Great Britain represents the will of the British citizens? What the hell are you thanking them for? From what I've been reading, when asked who is the greatest threat to world peace, the #1 british response is "Saddam Hussein" and a close second is, "George Bush." I sure as hell hope I never run into anyone who judges MY character based on the actions of my government rulers. -Nick Viejo. |
|
The UN would be rendered irrelevant by the withdrawal of the US. The idea of the UN to mediate international crisis is a good and decent idea. The problem with the UN is that in this mission, they have decided that they need to dictate/rule the rest of the world. The world court and international gun control come to mind. I disagree with both and I see no reason that any US president should subject American citizens to this. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: By the way Paolo, I want to thank you for being on the right side with Israel and America. I appreciate it a lot. We would be there for you if you needed us, You Canadians, Australians, Dutch, Brits, Danes and Finns here? Thank you for being on our side. Believe me, I would gladly be there for you. Ha! What makes you think that because some UN Diplomat to the UN who comes from, say, Great Britain represents the will of the British citizens? What the hell are you thanking them for? From what I've been reading, when asked who is the greatest threat to world peace, the #1 british response is "Saddam Hussein" and a close second is, "George Bush." I sure as hell hope I never run into anyone who judges MY character based on the actions of my government rulers. -Nick Viejo. Ok, speaking on my own, I really treasure and cherish our alliance with the UK, a truly great nation. If Blair is flouting his people to maintain that alliance, I appreciate it all the more. |
|
1)Can USA retire from UN membership? Yes,the UN has no hold on us we do not let them have. The UN is totaly unable to contorl Americans. 2) according to your point of view, what would be direct and indirect consequences of this act? More hate. If we droped out of the UN it would never be the same and would suffer. The smaller nations whos people have so much hate for Americans would hate us even more. The number of lies about America would be greater that ever. WE should not retire from the UN,we need to keep an eye on these people. There is so much anti-American hate out there and there are some who will try for many more years to kill as many of us as they can. If we look the other way we will just be hit again. These guys need to find out they are not the only ones who will go to their death if need be. In the Preamble od US Constitution, for Americans are affirmed a set of values that, imho, aren't only valid for US citiziens, but are UNIVERSAL values for all humanity: "... establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity... " Any country that is unable to respect this parameters can't be a UN member. It is unacceptable to see countries like Syria, o Iran or Iraq seated in a Assembly and to take decision concerning other countries, even if more advanced and respecteful of human rights than them. This is why the UN is run by anti-American lies and not and not respect for "human rights" |
|
Why doesn't Berlusconi (sp?) withdraw Italy from the European Union. Your soverignty in Italy is in more trouble than ours in the US. Europe will never be as powerful as the US cause most of the good Europeans (MOST not ALL!) left to come to the US. I have relatives that came over from Italy in the 20th Century. Before talking about the US and UN I suggest you Italians ditch the EU before it's too late! I hear because of the EU hollowpoint ammo is banned............ Edited to add: I like Europe! CRC |
|
Quoted: Why doesn't Berlusconi (sp?) withdraw Italy from the European Union. Your soverignty in Italy is in more trouble than ours in the US. Europe will never be as powerful as the US cause most of the good Europeans (MOST not ALL!) left to come to the US. I have relatives that came over from Italy in the 20th Century. Before talking about the US and UN I suggest you Italians ditch the EU before it's too late! I hear because of the EU hollowpoint ammo is banned............ Edited to add: I like Europe! CRC I started with being pro EU years ago, seeing EU the means to counterbalance USA and URSS superpowers. A third pole, imho, was needed. After URSS vanished, I was thinking that EU was good because we needed to counterbalance the only superpower left: USA. A good balance, not a sick one made of "against" with our "cold war " ally. Now I am starting to see two things that make me deny my favours to EU process: 1) The constitutional EU committee is working to build a European Constitution that unify all the EU nations into one entity: one defence, one economy, one political entity to deal with. But, unlike USA (and due to the problems that a federal state like yours have still to afford...), IT IS NOT CLEAR in which way we the people of the EU are goingo to control our governments and the Central European Parliament, the equivalent of the US Congress. To my experience, and due to the will of France and Germany to role (I don't dare to think if there will be also UK...) I fear that a democratic control will be only formal and not real. 2) At first I didn't understand why EU is pressing to admit in the EU up to 10 new nations, most of them from ex Soviet block: USA and western Europe has economy problems, this countries has more problem then us, what is the advantege? It is quickly said: they will be never admitted to our level. They will be our satellite and their policy will count ZERO, while the will of the founder EU countries will count ALL. It's like that only the first 13 states of USA will make laws, will get incomw from taxes and will be free to put more of them... Simply this is not FAIR. It's a form of neocolonialism. Why we are not quitting EU? Since that in this global world neutrality is an illusion, where is the alternative we can join, instead of EU? Holy sh$t... I will emigrate one day... I know! |
|
Quoted: GW Bush is starting to be really annoyed of the "PC game" the UN is playing: Russia says no (but I think that with current facts very soon the NO will be switched in a YES...) China says NO, France is saying NO, lets change the resolution draft, no it is still not good... and like that ad libitum. I ask: 1)Can USA retire from UN membership? The UN could feasibly use the same argument Herr Lincoln used to rape the South during the War of Northern Aggression, i.e., there is no clause for the dissolution of the United Nations in its charter. I don't see the UN acting militarily, but I don't think it would be real wise from a financial standpoint to further alienate the "world." Until America returns to a completely independent and isolationist nation with a completely nationalized economic base (no more international megacorps), withdrawl from international relations in the form of the UN is an impossibility. 2) according to your point of view, what would be direct and indirect consequences of this act? Directly? The UN as a functioning organization will collapse. The Europeans will likely try to take the mantle, but because of their entirely self-serving foreign policies the world as a "community" will no longer exist. International relations and more imortantly, trade, will be effected. International trade will likely become next to impossbile. There is a precedent: The Society of Nations, build after the WW I, with the aim to avoid another world conflict. In the eve of the WW II, USA and Germany retired their membership, and this organization lost its importance and was disbanded... It was called the League of Nations. The United States was never a member, consequently, the organization was a "nothing" on the stage of world politics. The Europeans dragged the world into yet another World War. The best solution if America is to remain a global financial/political/military empire is to end European independence. In the history of human events none have been more destructive, murderous, thieving, and self-serving than ALL the European nations. Either through total annihilation of the European population, forced occupation (very easy considering more than half our military forces are already stationed around Europe, and European militaries are pretty pathetic), or total economic isolation (trade embargo enforced with the Navy and Air Force, preventing anything from entering or leaving Europe). Europe has consistently proven that it DOES NOT have world peace in mind in its actions. The French, Germans, Italians, Russians, et al have zero credibility. Bush should be reacting to this by telling them publicly that they have caused the deaths of more humans than anybody in history, and that the stamping of their iron boots on Germany followed by diplomatic limp-wristing caused the most costly war in human history. Hussein needs to be dealt with eventually if peace is to exist. Do I think we should go to war now? No. Do we need to "get tough" on Iraq after a decade of molly-coddling? Abso-fucking-lutely. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Why doesn't Berlusconi (sp?) withdraw Italy from the European Union. Your soverignty in Italy is in more trouble than ours in the US. Europe will never be as powerful as the US cause most of the good Europeans (MOST not ALL!) left to come to the US. I have relatives that came over from Italy in the 20th Century. Before talking about the US and UN I suggest you Italians ditch the EU before it's too late! I hear because of the EU hollowpoint ammo is banned............ Edited to add: I like Europe! CRC I started with being pro EU years ago, seeing EU the means to counterbalance USA and URSS superpowers. A third pole, imho, was needed. After URSS vanished, I was thinking that EU was good because we needed to counterbalance the only superpower left: USA. A good balance, not a sick one made of "against" with our "cold war " ally. Now I am starting to see two things that make me deny my favours to EU process: "Counterbalance" by definition would mean that the EU would have to (and in reality, is currently) act against the United States. The United States has proven more capable than any other nation of being a "kind master." We don't need counterbalance, and frankly, Europe is so fucking pathetic in every aspect that it doesn't even have the ability (or credibility) to counterbalance a wet towel, much less the most powerful/wealthiest nation in history. What we (US) need is a free hand to do as we see fit. If the US is to act as an empire, which the UN and European limp-dicks have forced us to do, we need you European idiots (no offense dude, you seem like a great guy) to realize that in the great scheme of things you are no longer important, sit down, shut the fuck up, nd let us do what needs to be done. 1) The constitutional EU committee is working to build a European Constitution that unify all the EU nations into one entity: one defence, one economy, one political entity to deal with. But, unlike USA (and due to the problems that a federal state like yours have still to afford...), IT IS NOT CLEAR in which way we the people of the EU are goingo to control our governments and the Central European Parliament, the equivalent of the US Congress. To my experience, and due to the will of France and Germany to role (I don't dare to think if there will be also UK...) I fear that a democratic control will be only formal and not real. You are just getting a taste of how many in the US feel regarding California and New York. 51% of the voters in those states essentially rule American domestic and international politics. Democracy is a very bad thing to the 49% who don't agree. As we can see from Europe, the elitists and those on the dole have driven once solvent nations into MASSIVE debt. The working people are expected to pick up the tab through ungodly taxes. 2) At first I didn't understand why EU is pressing to admit in the EU up to 10 new nations, most of them from ex Soviet block: USA and western Europe has economy problems, this countries has more problem then us, what is the advantege? It is quickly said: they will be never admitted to our level. They will be our satellite and their policy will count ZERO, while the will of the founder EU countries will count ALL. It's like that only the first 13 states of USA will make laws, will get incomw from taxes and will be free to put more of them... Simply this is not FAIR. It's a form of neocolonialism. Won't be the first time in your history you've tried to fuck over the Balkans. Why we are not quitting EU? Since that in this global world neutrality is an illusion, where is the alternative we can join, instead of EU? How 'bout you suck it up and stand on your own two feet, instead of looking for support? Holy sh$t... I will emigrate one day... I know! Cool. |