I pit all you thick fuckers who booed and jeered when your master mentioned the UN during his fabulous conference speech.
Here’s an idea for you - close your borders - stop trading with and trying to meddle with the rest of the planet, and place your fingers back in your ears. THEN you can dismiss the UN with some cheap booing and jeering.
In your 1 chance to show how the American method was valid and why you didnt need the UN - guess what you did? YOU FUCKED IT UP. Booing when the UN is mentioned in a speech aint going to change that. GROW THE FUCK UP.
Another nail in the coffin of international US respect.
Fine with me. Give me the choice between isolationism and having to have at least four other countries approve of everything and I’ll take isolationism every time.
That cuts both ways, by the way. See how you do without us. I think that after some serious soul searching we’ll get back on track, probably with a much lower standard of living, but it would sure beat the worldwide depression that our isolationism would lead to.
Or else you just said something totally stupid and I took the bait. Yeah, that’s probably it. Because if you meant it then you’re a loon.
I’d be quite happy without the world outside the US. We can feed ourselves, and while we’d all have to do with a lower standard of living, I’m sure we’d eventually work out a deal whereby unmanned shipping containers are exchanged out in the sea.
Either way, we could all be quite happy without the rest of the world. For the most part, we were quite happy without the rest of the world. America has always mostly wanted to be left alone. We entered the Imperial Age out of something akin to guilt, as though we somehow had not fulfilled familial obligations, and almost immediately realized we had no real reason apart from a vague sense of obligation. So we left, albeit at our own slow pace.
Its the world that keeps demanding America’s attention, not the other way around. We don’t want to fight your wars, and we don’t want to rule you. We just want to be left alone. and. You. Won’t. GO AWAY!!!
Hmmm. I took it as booing any president (ie, a potential one named Kerry) who would go to the UN for permission to act in the US’s interest. Not booing the UN iteself.
And Kerry, if you remember, said in his speech that he wouldn’t seek a permission slip from the UN, although he keeps insisting Bush should have done exactly that. Both sides of the same issue, anyone?
Now, we can debate whether going into Iraq was in the US’s interest (I think it wasn’t), but I certainly don’t want my president kow towing to the UN on issues he thinks is.
You know, I’ve read a history book or two, and I recall here being international trade, and international relations, and international law, and international alliences before 1947. The UN isn’t “the world”. The UN is just a big ugly building on the East River where diplomats like to hang out.
As the richest nation on earth, it would be odd if we DIDN’T run a net trade deficit. Would you expect, for instance, Mexicans to buy more American goods on average than we Americans by from Mexico?
Indeed, booers and hissers, let us scrap the UN along with the World Trade Organisation, World Bank, International Monetary Fund and any other institution committed to tyrranically upholding US property privilege (financial, intellectual and otherwise).
My point was this: Posters are predicting a lower standard of living if we closed the borders to trade. On the surface of it, 'twould seem that if the borders were closed, more money would stay within this country, and the standard of living would rise, not decline.
Do you think that it’s acceptable behaviour to take the law into your own hands? If someone stole your property, is it okay for you to go over and beat him up instead of going to the police? Suppose you bought a faulty product. Is it okay to vandalize the maker’s offices? Or would you persue legal action through the courts? If you’re arrested do you have a right to due process through the courts; or if you feel that your arrest was unwarranted, is it proper to fight your way out of custody or break jail? If you’re playing chess, can you unilaterally change the rules and say, “My pawns can jump up to seven squares and take your queen”?
Part of being a good citizen is playing by the rules. If you don’t agree with the rules, then you can try to change them by getting the majority to agree with you or you can become an outlaw. The United States freely signed the UN Charter, and freely agreed to abide by the rules. Ever watch a sporting match? When a decision goes against a team they might not agree with it, but they accept it because that’s how the game is played. So it is with the UN. We agreed to play by the rules that we helped to set up. If we decide we don’t want to play by those rules, what right do we have to expect any other nation to abide by them?
Huh? It’s bad enough that running shoes cost $100, do you want to pay $200 to have them made here? Show me a country that got rich by walling iteslf off from the outside world. On the other hand, you have countless countries and territories (like Hong Kong) that got rich by keeping their borders as open as possible to trade.
I stopped buying Rockports because they switched their manufacturing plants from the United States to China. I would have continued buying them if there had been a corresponding drop in the price of the shoes. However, there was not. All it amounted to was putting Americans out of work and putting more money into the pockets of those at the top of the company. I just use this to illustrate the point that companies fleeing the United States doesn’t always translate into lower prices for the consumer.
Really? “for the most part” means, I don´t know the period betwen 1776 and the US-Spanish War? (probably earlier, I´m at work and don´t have time to do research); because ever since then the US has actively sought a position of control over other nations.
[quote]
Do you think that it’s acceptable behaviour to take the law into your own hands? If someone stole your property, is it okay for you to go over and beat him up instead of going to the police?
[quote]
If the supposed authorities claim rights and power I did not give the, then yes. Moreover, if the supposed authories refuse to actually do what they were supposed to, I have no obligation to support or
The US is not a citizen. It is a sovereign nation. The UN has no authority over anyone, moral, legal, or otherwise, except at the discretion of its membership and outside parties.
Those rules do not give the UN authority over US soveriegnty. In fact, the US chooses to provide the UN a location The US is legally free to leave any time it wishes, and the UN has no authority to control it in any way at any time.
Pray tell, what is your inspiration for this particular garbage?
Yeah. but I think we’d be a lot happier without all the miserable bastards outside the country. That might make up for the money…
Not particularly. Along with Great Britain, we enforced a no-meddling European nations. Britain didn’t want Spain (or Holland or Portugal or France) building bases in Latin America and neither did we. We sometimes enforced our will on those states, but they’ve all been political basket cases regardless, and I feel no guilt over it. In any even, we don’t and never wanted to control them, only to have their cooperation where it mattered.
Now, the real exception starts around 1901 and the Boxer rebellion. The US (along with Japan) sent forces to keep the Europeans company. That and the conquest of Cuba, Peurto Rico, and the Phillipines and forcing Japan to open are about it. And in all those cases, we more or less left them alone afterwards. The Phillipines was scheduled to revert to independance in 1944 or 45. It wound up happening in 46, due to the war. Cuba went it own route, and would be a footnote of history except that the Cold War demanded we respond. Puerto Rico has been free to do as it pleases for a while. We never conquered japan in any case and mostly wanted them to (a) stop abducting our sailors and (b) let us build coal stations. As it happened, this may have been the best course of action for the Japanese as we didn’t kill anyone and it led to the end of the useless Bakufu, and the creation (however brief) of a solid democracy in Japan. And we have a few islands in the Pacific, which we mostly ignore because they’re specks on a map.
I didn’t give the authorities my consent to pull me over for speeding. Does that mean that they have no power to give me a ticket?
Then it has legal authority to sanction its members. The U.S. is a member. Furthermore, we agreed to abide by its rules.
The garbage that you are spewing.
Think about what you are saying. You are saying that any nation can choose to disregard the rules any time it wishes, and that no international body has the authority to do anything about it militarily, economically or otherwise. By that logic, Saddam was perfectly within his rights to do anything he wished. Since you’re saying that nations can disregard the UN, any UN resolutions against Iraq had no power and thus the U.S. attack was illegal.
Or are you saying, “All member nations must abide by the UN charter. Except the U.S., because rules don’t apply to us.”?
