Subject:
|
Re: One world order is a pipe dream (was Re: UN Gets It Right!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 25 Jun 2004 05:44:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1403 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Parsons wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
Cool. I think our one-sided participation in the “world community” is
messed up.
|
Yes.
| |
We should either withdraw from the UN,
|
Yes.
| |
strap on the six-guns, and do our
thing.
|
Yes, and ride on with our trusty sidekick Britain.
| |
Or pay our dues, submit to things like world courts,
|
This is not possible and unconstitutional.
|
I love the imprecision of this :-)
Perhaps ‘it is not possible for the US to pay its dues’ - and its not like
the US doesn’t have buckets of money, so presumably its debt to the world
(personified in many ways by the UN) is overwhelmingly huge. Not a view I
necessarily agree with, but it will find support among some.
Or ‘paying its dues is unconstitutional’ - which makes me smile just thinking
about it as a defence. “Well, we took a vote, and decided we don’t have to
pay you back.” I like it. Its generally not tenable, and lacks any sense of
equity, but I like it.
More likely I imagine, its that submitting to world courts that John feels is
impossible and unconstitutional. Indeed, its presumably only not possible
because its not constitutional.
|
Your command of the obvious is impressive. Sorry I didn’t snip the “or pay our
dues” part; glad you found the “imprecision” amusing. Pettifogging makes boring
conversation IMO. For instance if I were to rejoin by saying that your use of
“its” is grammatically incorrect. Yawn.
| |
I don’t know if this is true (its not my constitution)
|
Then why comment? And why should the fact that it’s not your constitution
be germane?
| |
, but for a country
that is so noisy about the importance of the rule of law in international
relations, this just seems laughable too. How can one take the US foreign
policy positions on things like war crimes, free trade, sovereignty seriously
when the US feels so completely free to fail to apply the same rules to its
own behaviour. Indeed, who does? Not to say that one ought not take the US
seriously - its got quite a few big guns, more and bigger than anyone else in
the world, and its not afraid to use them.
|
You are merely restating Chris’ objection (below). What is the purpose of your
post?
| |
| |
| |
and go along to
get along. I’m not actually sure which course would be better, but our
current waffling sucks.
|
It is a farce, as exemplified by Sudan heading the human rights advisory
council.
|
I am not sure how what Sudan is doing bears on what the US ought to be doing.
|
I was citing one reason why the UN is bogus and should be forsaken by the US.
| |
And as a question of training and development, I have seen it as a successful
technique to have recalcitrants sit in as chairs of bodies for a while. The
deeper exposure to the issues, the better understanding of what its all about
often leads to better sign on, and better performance. And it also helps
overcome the (generally well founded) concern that bodies always led by
westerners fail to appreciate the issues of other countries, and become yet
more avenues of western imperialism.
|
Seriously, only a Liberal could come up with such a justification!
| |
| |
One world order is a pipe dream and a horrible idea to boot.
|
I thought that the one world order (which seems to be used interchangeably
with New World Order)
|
Well, you are wrong. Believe it or don’t, if I had meant “new world order”, I
would have typed “new world order”. As it is I simply meant one world order, as
in the UN.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
52 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
