 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
hyperpower, i like that.
i agree with monkspider, being the ***** of the US does not create a world united.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
monkspider
|
 |
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
not yet, but it's about to.
Because the U.S.'s involvement in the U.N. will become much less after they veto the resolution to use military force (which I'm certain they will do).
and monk if they do veto the resolution- the U.S. may even withdraw completely- doubtful, but still possible. What will happen to the U.N. then?
|
It's difficult to say for sure. If the USA resigned from the UN, it would be highly reminiscent of bad guys like Japan and Italy resigning from the League. It would severely hurt both, and it would put the USA at odds with the world.. If the USA did withdraw, it would almost certainly put the world on the path toward a calamity on a scale unknown since dawn of time.
It is difficult to say what the UN would be like minus the USA, it would probably more interested in various philanthropic causes, but it would also have to constantly stare down a mighty US juggernaut looking to stop it at every pass. Plus, where would the UN move? Paris? Berlin? London?
One thing is certain, the UN cannot become a tool for US expansion, that is the the worst scenario.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
frazzy stop playing debate dodgeball.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
CerebrusIV, YOU ARE THE VOICE OF REASON!
Last edited by MRT144 on 06-03-2003 at 18:13
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Viceroy
|
 |
tu mumbai se, mai Bombay se
Nov 2000
time: 05:26
|
|
not YET ..
But the US is the world super power, wether we like that or not, and to force them outside of the UN (regardless of them being right or wrong) is a huge mistake.
The only power to be in direct risk is Saddam's, and the surrounding arab dictatorships/kingdoms (who may fear a democratic Iraq). I could understand any of them wanting to Veto such an action, but they don't constitute a major power, so don't have that right.
France will not be put in peril by this action, nor China, nor Russia .. they certainly may lose some investment, but its small fry really.
I defend France, China and Russia's right wholeheartedly to disagree, even veto when they feel there national interest is put in danger .. but this doesn't.
If France, China and Russia abstain, and diplomatically state there total disagreement to the American action, and tell the US its on its own .. then that will be a victory for the UN. If any of them Veto what is clearly not a matter of gravity for any of these nations, then that will be a failure, not because they didn't agree with the US, but because they used their Veto to spite the US.
I still think there is hope that the 3 will abstain, and issue a warning, in which case, the UN may still come out of this stronger, not weaker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Viceroy
not YET ..
But the US is the world super power, wether we like that or not, and to force them outside of the UN (regardless of them being right or wrong) is a huge mistake.
The only power to be in direct risk is Saddam's, and the surrounding arab dictatorships/kingdoms (who may fear a democratic Iraq). I could understand any of them wanting to Veto such an action, but they don't constitute a major power, so don't have that right.
France will not be put in peril by this action, nor China, nor Russia .. they certainly may lose some investment, but its small fry really.
I defend France, China and Russia's right wholeheartedly to disagree, even veto when they feel there national interest is put in danger .. but this doesn't.
If France, China and Russia abstain, and diplomatically state there total disagreement to the American action, and tell the US its on its own .. then that will be a victory for the UN. If any of them Veto what is clearly not a matter of gravity for any of these nations, then that will be a failure, not because they didn't agree with the US, but because they used their Veto to spite the US.
I still think there is hope that the 3 will abstain, and issue a warning, in which case, the UN may still come out of this stronger, not weaker. |
Well done Viceroy.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
monkspider
|
|
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Straybow
"Jane, you ignorant slut." —Dan Akroyd.
 The only country that successfully used the UN to the expansion of its hegemony was the Soviet Union.
I guess it would be the worst scenario for every country in the world to be ruled by an elected representative government tolerant of dissent, economically healthy, educated, etc. My God, what would the liberals complain about then?
Oh, wait… what am I thinking? There's always "animal rights."  |
Stray, if the UN becomes a marionette of American policy, then it will effectively cease to operate as a vehicle of peace and humanitarianism. This is highly undesirable for many reasons. One need only look at American foreign policy over the past fifty years to see that America, the superpower, is only interested hegemonic politics of expansion and empowerment of it's transcendent capitalist instiutions. In other words, the precedent that America has set on the global scene gives humanity much to fear.
Therefore,The reduction of the UN to a de facto US puppet would tear asunder the notion of a international body to check those who would wage aggresive war. Who would take the UN seriously when it is clear that the USA will use it as nothing more than an organ of further expanding it's role as both arbiter and imperator of world affairs. The purpose of the UN is to represent humanity, not the whims of a hyperpower who has hijacked it. It is clear that such a dichotomy would only lead to a general decrease in things such as living standards, democracy, and so forth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monkspider
Stray, if the UN becomes a marionette of American policy, then it will effectively cease to operate as a vehicle of peace and humanitarianism. This is highly undesirable for many reasons. One need only look at American foreign policy over the past fifty years to see that America, the superpower, is only interested hegemonic politics of expansion and empowerment of it's transcendent capitalist instiutions. In other words, the precedent that America has set on the global scene gives humanity much to fear.
Therefore,The reduction of the UN to a de facto US puppet would tear asunder the notion of a international body to check those who would wage aggresive war. Who would take the UN seriously when it is clear that the USA will use it as nothing more than an organ of further expanding it's role as both arbiter and imperator of world affairs. The purpose of the UN is to represent humanity, not the whims of a hyperpower who has hijacked it. It is clear that such a dichotomy would only lead to a general decrease in things such as living standards, democracy, and so forth. |
monkspider, you must be the most diametrically opposed person to me that I know... Of all the people on this forum and in my RL (heh, yeah, i got one of those... ), you are the only one who consistently seem to hold the exact opposite view on everything... I just thought that I would note this, for some reason. Nothing in particular about your post tho.
Kman
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-03-2003 12:07
I still would never want to shake your hand tho, I have a fear we would instantly annhilate each other and be converted into energy to be returned to the universe...
|