 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:25
|
|
Bill Clinton, of all people, said the other day on the Larry King live that the U.S. had the legal right to lead a coalition to disarm Saddam Hussein regardless of whether or not the U.N. Security Council issued an express authorization for the use of force. Clearly, what Clinton had in mind was his own unilateral action in Kosovo.
So if it is indeed legal for the U.S. to proceed to "protect the world" without the U.N.'s authorization, why don't we simply ignore the U.N.?
I think the answer is obvious. The world does not perceive individual actions of one nation or a group of nations to be lawful if those actions are not authorized by the United Nations.
Besides, if we were to declare a policy of spreading democracy throughout the world through force, then automatically we would make half the world enemies of United States. Such a policy may even provoke a world war.
The sole justification for proceeding without U.N. authority, therefore, is under circumstances where the U.N. has failed to act due to a veto at the Security Council.
I would also argue that the offending nation
1) has to actually invade another nation without just cause;
2) threaten world peace through the acquisition of weapons of mass instruction in combination with aggressive conduct toward its neighbors; or
3) engage in an ethnic cleansing operation against its own people, such as we saw Kosovo.
There may be other circumstances that would justify the "unilateral" use of force. However, the purpose for any action would be solely to protect or restore peace, or save human life. Unilateral use of force cannot be justified solely to spread democracy.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:25
|
|
DP
Last edited by Ned on 11-02-2003 at 05:40
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999 time: 05:25
|
|
Ned - Dictators use force to maintain their power. While it is true that in some cases, years (spreading into decades) of pressure will evoke change (SK), this is a mighty long time to make the people suffering under the rule OF those dictatorial powers wait for a breath of freedom.
The Shrub, for all his maniacal BS, has demonstrated that it is possible to line 'em up like bowling pins, call them what they are in public, and not provoke a state of war for doing so ("Axis of Evil").
Is he right? Are they evil? They sure fit most definitions I've ever seen of the word.
Are we at war with them? Not yet.
And, I do not propose that we declare war on every dictatorial state in the same breath, either.
Rather, we can, through the UN, issue mandates for change. They can either accept them, or stand in violation. Standing in violation will lead to "dire consequences." Their choice. Free their own people, or the world body will do it for them.
-=Vel=-
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:25
|
|
Vel, you know it is interesting to know democracy or republicanism was little known in the whole history of man? We had brief, shining examples in Athens and the Delian league. But on the whole, even Greek city states were ruled by tryants.
Rome adopted a repubican form of government and spread it throughout the Mediterranean. But even Roman democracy succumbed to the ever increasing autocracy of the Imperial government.
The people of Iceland founded a parliament 1000 years ago. Britain began its own experiment with democracy with the Magna Carta.
Still, even until modern times, democracy was virtually unknown in much of the world. In the last century, the whole concept of democracy and freedom was under challenge by fascism and communism, and by militarism in Japan. We weathered those storms, and, as you say, we now find ourselfs the sole remaining superpower with the power to spread our ideals.
I agree, Vel, the cause is just and is worth fighting for. Mom, apple pie and the American Way.
But we do have a public relations problem. Many will think that we are more after an Empire like the Romans that after a democratic world. Witness the rants of Che.
How do we overcome this?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999 time: 05:25
|
|
I like the "Mom, Apple Pie, and the American Way," line but that, I fear, is part of the PR problem.
We can't package it and sell it like that, even when we mean "with liberty and justice for all" because if we couch it in terms of the former, then we come off sounding like we want to Americanize the world.
IMO, the best way around the PR problem is to operate through the UN. Bolster and strengthen it, giving the world body as a whole a voice, and enabling that organization to become much more than it currently is.
The first baby steps toward doing that would be to begin living up to our responsibilities IN the UN, by assuming more of a leadership role there, building coalitions and voting blocks of nations who are eager and open to see a strengthened UN, and by abiding by its decisions, even when they don't play our way. Specific things we can do to get the ball rolling would be to pay all back UN dues, keep them current, and abide by their decision regarding Nicaragua (and others I'm prolly not aware of).
Do that, and we demonstrate that we're bringing a fresh perspective to the table.
-=Vel=-
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
I skimmed the entire thread and I am agast. This is the single most out of touch thread I have ever read on Poly, and that is saying something. Please tell me that this is a satire contest. Please.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Possible what? Look, let me state some facts to get you all back on track. America is a capitalist democracy and it is not going to become communist, anarchist, socialist, libitarian, green or any of this other far out wacko stuff. Ever, short of the destruction of conquest of the country.
There is never going to be a one world government short of military conquest and then there will never be total control.
The UN as a concept related to world security was is valid under only one scenario, the existance of two oposing superpowers giving the UN a role of mediation. With the implosion of the Soviet Union the UN ceased to matter.
NATO also died with the Soviet Union as we are seeing now that the Germans and French are welching on their responsibilitites now.
And the EU, not specifically mentioned above but lurking in the background is going to crumble like a cookie at the first hint of danger.
Now, given those parameters which is REALITY why don't you folks discuss some alternatives that might come to pass in this plane of existence.
Last edited by Capt Dizle on 11-02-2003 at 08:19
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Okay, in that case I want to promote dental assistants as world leaders. I love to have my teeth cleaned cause they all have big breasts, sweet breath, white teeth and, in the south, wonderful accents.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25. Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|