I’m beginning to think John Mace took the best course here.
To summarize, what I’ve previously said in detail; none of the aspects of the US-UN relationship match the situation described in the OP, and even if they did, the premise in the OP is mostly wrong anyhow.
There is no way that the US is going to internally adopt an openly autocratic regime. However, if my “becoming a dictator nation” you mean “a dictator amongst nations”, then to an extent, yes. The US is quite clearly an imperial power that just doesn’t like to admit it. SInce this latest war, the US government isn’t even really trying to hide it anymore.
So the US is not going to become a dictatorship, nor will it directly attempt to run other countries through colonisation. However it, will, and already does, project its power and its will, it is an empire, and it does crack down on countries that stand in its way, for more or less justifiable reasons, because it can.
And that’s one of the main reasons for which so many people in the world resent the US.
The UN is about as powerful as UT’s Student Government. In other words, they can’t do anything. The UN’s primary purpose in the world is to provide a meeting place for nations to deal and talk things over.
Any government that can project its power is an Empire? Utter BS. Here is a wuick newsflash for all of you who keep accusing the US of Imperialism. That generally involves conquering and holding territory for economic exploitation. We can easily do the latter without the former, and do so all the time.
From the Collins English dictionary:
Imperialism (…) 2. an instance or policy of aggressive behaviour by one state against another. 3. the extension or attempted extension of authority, influence, power, etc., by any person, country, institution, etc.
I’d say that those fit with the USA’s behaviour. Imperialism has become a whole lot more sophisticated since the days of sending some thugs with guns to go and steal someone else’s country.
Your second sentence is exactly what I meant by the OP, Zorro.
As for the first sentence, we’ll see. I’m waiting for Shrub to send up trial balloons in the press withing the next year suggesting that perhaps America can not afford the potential instability a 2004 election could bring. The American electorate may just be quiescent enough at this point to swallow it.
THAT IS UTTER CRAP!!!
The US military is the military of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. If anything its control has been RESTORED to its rightful leaders and taken away from would-be dictators at the UN.
My gosh, he means it.
I wasn’t sure if you were serious in your other thread.
And my prediction in return is that Bush will never say or imply anything of the sort, under any circumstances, for any reason, at any time.
This is borderline delusional thinking, like the idea that the US military used to be at the UN’s beck and call, and now that they aren’t (because, apparently, Bush used it to enforce a UN-approved ceasefire and a UN Security Council resolution), the US is going to become the dictator of the world.
There isn’t any way to counter such thinking except to point out that cancelling elections in the US has never happened, has no chance of happening now, and has virtually zero possibility of happening anytime in the next hundred years.
Perhaps you are a betting man. If so, I will donate $50 to a charity of your own choice if, at any time between now and December 31, 2004, you can provide a cite of Bush proposing that the national US elections of 2004 be cancelled. If you can’t, you will donate $50 to the national Republican party.
Bet?
Regards,
Shodan
**THAT IS UTTER CRAP!!!
The US military is the military of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. If anything its control has been RESTORED to its rightful leaders and taken away from would-be dictators at the UN.
[/Quote]
Wow, the awesome power of those four exclamation points has certainly convinced me of the strength of your argument.
Actually, I’d appreciate it if you could tell us during what period the UN ever had control of the US military.
Oh, hell, hit the wrong key again.
Wow, the awesome power of those four exclamation points has certainly convinced me of the strength of your argument.
Actually, I’d appreciate it if you could tell us during what period the UN ever had control of the US military.
The OP’s entire question is based on the premise that the President USA has “stolen” control of the US military from the UN, thereby becoming a dictator.
[quote]
As for the first sentence, we’ll see. I’m waiting for Shrub to send up trial balloons in the press withing the next year suggesting that perhaps America can not afford the potential instability a 2004 election could bring. The American electorate may just be quiescent enough at this point to swallow it.
[quote]
The timeless classics never grow old. It was funny when the conservatives said it about Clinton and it’s still funny when the liberals say it about Bush.
Given that I’m only half-serious in my fears about Shrub (shoulda put a winking Smilie there, oops), and I would sooner slash my wrists over the grave of my Dem Senator great-grandfather than even THINK about giving $50 directly to the Republicans, I’ll pass.
If you really want to gamble, try getting hospital care in Vegas.
And 'cause it is GD folks…cite?
Were you serious about the OP in this thread? If so, I would like some indication why you believe the US military used to be under the control of the UN, and why the US enforcing UNSC Resolution 1441 and the 1991 cease-fire constitutes a loss of control.
Or if you were half-serious about the accusations of Bush cancelling elections, perhaps you would like to make the bet $25? 
Regards,
Shodan
Nope. Its my understanding that between 1948 & 1990, the UN only approved of 2 military missions. Korea & Kuwait. Between 1900 & today they have approved of about 10 more but they were all peacekeeping missions. The vast majority (i’d say 95%) of the world’s military action in the world is done outside the security council’s authority.
Also, why would the US want to be a military ruler on earth? That serves no purpose.
The context between the situations is different on a variety of levels. There isn’t one nation united under the UN but 192 independent nations, the UN never controlled the US’s military, the US probably has no desire to conquer the world and the rest of the countries in the world still have their own military.
Can you recommend a book scotandrsn that describes the fall into despotism or the nature of totalitarian culture (as opposed to the nature of culture that gives rise to liberal democracy)? i love that subject, its probably sociologies most important subject for the 20th & 21st century.
I am serious about the OP, actually. While it is true that the UN has no control over the US military, the US has frequently placed its forces alongside UN troops (without submitting them to UN control) in a number of theaters where the UN probably could never have prevailed alone.
Thus the UN security council has come to count on the US military to degree that I find similar to an aristocratic government like the Roman senate coming to rely on the generals of an independent military. They may not control them, but they may count on them to act in their mutual interest.
Not so now. The problem with the US miltary (led by Bush) deciding how to enforce UNSC resolutions more or less unilaterally is that they were not the US’s resolutions to begin with. The UNSC had a right to expect that they would collectively control the execution of their resolutions. Now with Hussein’s Iraq more or less dismantled, the US is announcing it’s intentions against Syria, currently a fellow Security Council member. I doubt this is covered in any Security Council Resolution.
Now the aristocracy of the UN must ask itself if the US military is to be the trusted ally in the future that it has been in the past, which I found to be a very similar situation that aristocracies find themselves in just as they lose their influence.
Look, Daddy, i caught a fish!!
scotandrsn, I love the way you keep revising the rules of the game until you find someone who agrees with you…
Zorro, if you were zapped back in time 100 years, would you be saying the same things about the UK? Just curious…
Oh, and while I’m on my feet… Diogenes, meet scotandrsn. scotandrsn, meet Diogenes.
-Rav
it occurs to me that there is a starvation of facts in this debate. It has been readily admitted that the theory about the aristocracy losing control of the military (etc) might not be exactly as remembered… and even if it was remembered accurately, it has been acknowledged that such a theory is merely analgous to the current situation in international politics, not a real explanation of it (which a theory should pretend to do).
For crying out loud, people, there was an attempt to solve a factual question about how many times the UN has authorized force with a simple dismissive statement (“And the difference between a peace-keeping operation and a military action would be…?”).
This thread has nothing to do with debates because it has nothing to do with facts. It is fantasy land.
And the difference between a peacekeeping operation and a military operation is that under the first, the UN acts under the authority of Chapter VI of the charter (entitled Pacific Settlement of Disputes), as opposed to Chapter VII (entitled Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression).
I respectfully suggest that some degree of knowledge, expertise, or facts be intserted into this “debate,” else it is only opinion and belongs somewhere else. Like next to an Ann Coulter or Ted Rall column.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ravenman *
**
And the difference between a peacekeeping operation and a military operation is that under the first, the UN acts under the authority of Chapter VI of the charter (entitled Pacific Settlement of Disputes), as opposed to Chapter VII (entitled Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression).
Nifty. You’ve told me that “peacekeeping mission” stands for “acting under Chapter IV” and “military action” stands for “acting under Chapter VII”.
When the people with guns show up in my country and didn’t happen to bring the chapter with them, how do I physically tell the difference between one and the other, the point of the question in the first place?
Silly. That’s what the blue helmets are for.