Time to dump the UN?

[Bob]

"International institutions" only threaten our sovereignty when idiot leaders (i.e. Chretien saying he would "follow the will of the UN") defer their responsibilities to the decisions of verminous bureaucrats. And again we cannot get past the idiocy of the USA (and Canada) for not immediately withdrawing funding from the UN. Indeed, we're all getting exactly what we deserve because abolishing the UN is never even discussed on "serious" programming like the CBC or CNN or BBC. As we've seen from the usual suspects in here who cling to the myth of the UN being some sort of worthwhile and indispensable institution, any call for abolition of the UN and expulsion of third-world trash "representatives" from NYC is labelled as "far-right extremism". We're getting exactly what we deserve, and the Arab/Muslim societies and other inferior cultures and countries are laughing at us.

I said it before and I'll say it again, we need to get to the point where apologists for the UN are immediately derided with contempt. It needs to be brought to the point where people despise UN supporters just as they do communists and Nazis, so that internationalists (basically global communists, like supporters of the EU) are forced to once again hide in the shadows and play war games in their basements while they masturbate to the thought of a global worker revolution.

[Guest American Woman]

You're right. They can avoid criticism by not joining....

We can hardly "avoid criticism." People can, and do, criticize to their hearts' content.

It's just as you said - the U.S. wishes to remain a sovereign state. Once another force has jurisdiction over that, once that power has been handed to someone outside the state, sovereignty is actually questionable:

A sovereign state is a state with a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.

It is also normally understood to be a state which is not

dependent on, or

subject to any other power

or state. ...

Edited September 25, 2011 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

Yeah, criticism is the wrong word.

[Bob]

We can hardly "avoid criticism." People can, and do, criticize to their hearts' content.

It's just as you said - the U.S. wishes to remain a sovereign state. Once another force has jurisdiction over that, once that power has been handed to someone outside the state, sovereignty is actually questionable:

A sovereign state is a state with a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.

It is also normally understood to be a state which is not

dependent on, or

subject to any other power

or state. ...

Obama has a different vision and perception, clearly, as his moves on the "international stage" suggest that he wants reduced American sovereignty, which of course he would describe as "greater involvement" or "greater cooperation" to help "improve America's image". Virtually all of his moves at the UN and abroad project American weakness and deference to its enemies. It's embarrassing to watch. I remember seeing an image of him getting off of Air Force One with a copy of Fareed Zakaria's (left-wing moron) Post American world. The examples of this are endless. I don't think Bush was much better, either.

[wyly]

However, some States are philosophically opposed to this.

non-membership in the ICC is all about avoiding being held responsible for crimes...each of the countries I mentioned has an impressive list of crimes committed and criminals not being held accountable for their actions...if you want to let them hide behind "philosophy" feel free to do so but you only fooling yourself and they aren't fooling anyone...

[Moonlight Graham]

the ICC is not part of the UN

Oh yes it is!

[Scotty]

Why even have criminal courts in Canada? We could just allow the cops to lock up anyone for life if they believe they've committed a crime. In the United States, jurisdictions that have the death penalty could just save money by allowing the cops to execute anyone they suspect of a capital crime.

I don't believe the police have ever had 'courts'. Are you suggesting military courts are akin to vigilante justice or dictatorships?

[maple_leafs182]

I'm all for getting rid of the UN, while we are at it can we get rid of the WTO, IMF, World Bank, BIS, the G8 and G20, Harper, Nato, NAFTA.

And I don't want the UN to be replaced with something similar, I prefer national sovereignty.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Virtually all of his moves at the UN and abroad project American weakness and deference to its enemies. It's embarrassing to watch.

If it's embarrassing to watch for you then yours is a skewed and dated perspective. America's role in the world has constantly changed...largely because of American decisions. The American hegemon has been wildly successful and has no current equal, regardless of who is the sitting president. It's not about ruling the world....

[Bob]

If it's embarrassing to watch for you then yours is a skewed and dated perspective. America's role in the world has constantly changed...largely because of American decisions. The American hegemon has been wildly successful and has no current equal, regardless of who is the sitting president. It's not about ruling the world....

I'm not proposing American become some sort of oppressive empire, but it seems to me that America keeps getting bullied by its supposed "allies". This is true from Israel still confidently receiving its cheque from America despite contravening America's declared expectations, to Pakistan being complicit in the murder of American soldiers and other civilians yet still receiving its money in military aid. It seems as if America won't stand up for its interests, and constantly bends to the will of lesser powers (largely a product of how prevalent bleding heart suicidal leftism has become within domestic politics).

It's almost as if American's decline in influence around the world (which is certainly bad thing) is a product of America's unwillingness to really exert its power (military and economic), despite the constant lies from the left about an aggressive and imperialistic America.

[wyly]

Oh yes it is!

oh no it's not!...

The ICC is an independent international organisation, and is not part of the United Nations system.[/u] Its seat is at The Hague in the Netherlands. Although the Court’s expenses are funded primarily by States Parties, it also receives voluntary contributions from governments, international organisations, individuals, corporations and other entities.[/quote]

ICC

[Bob]

oh no it's not!...

The ICC is an independent international organisation, and is not part of the United Nations system.[/u] Its seat is at The Hague in the Netherlands. Although the Court’s expenses are funded primarily by States Parties, it also receives voluntary contributions from governments, international organisations, individuals, corporations and other entities.[/quote]

ICC

The ICC is as independent from the UN as the CBC is from the Canadian government. Of course wyly is unable to discern between ideas on paper and reality.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not proposing American become some sort of oppressive empire, but it seems to me that America keeps getting bullied by its supposed "allies". This is true from Israel still confidently receiving its cheque from America despite contravening America's declared expectations, to Pakistan being complicit in the murder of American soldiers and other civilians yet still receiving its money in military aid.

The totality of such American foreign aid is about $16 billion per year. Meanwhile, the US funds 22% of the UN budget. And far more is spent on Iraq and Afghanistan, where real enemies resided.

It seems as if America won't stand up for its interests, and constantly bends to the will of lesser powers (largely a product of how prevalent bleding heart suicidal leftism has become within domestic politics).

This view is very hard to reconcile with recent foreign intervention(s) by the US.

It's almost as if American's decline in influence around the world (which is certainly bad thing) is a product of America's unwillingness to really exert its power (military and economic), despite the constant lies from the left about an aggressive and imperialistic America.

No...in a post Cold War world, American exceptionalism will recede and return to its historic footprint, if only because it can't afford to do otherwise. At times it is comical when other nationals wish/want to marshall American power to their own purpose based on an erroneous or dated understanding of American foreign and domestic policy interests.

[wyly]

ame='wyly' date='25 September 2011 - 07:45 PM' timestamp='1316994359' post='712218']

oh no it's not!...

The ICC is as independent from the UN as the CBC is from the Canadian government. Of course wyly is unable to discern between ideas on paper and reality.

ICC doesn't receive funding from the UN...

[Bob]

The totality of such American foreign aid is about $16 billion per year. Meanwhile, the US funds 22% of the UN budget. And far more is spent on Iraq and Afghanistan, where real enemies resided. [/quote[

That may be the official number, but many things (and many more billions of dollars) are spend on similar things that don't full under the category of "aid". Connected to something you just mentioned (which is quoted below) is the cost of America's intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, consider how much money America spends trying to "win hearts and minds" of inferior and barbaric societies. I've seen estimates of America's total expenditure on these wars totaling around two trillion dollars. A lot of that money goes towards technology and measures intended to reduce the likelihood of harm befalling "innocent civilians", while almost always compromising military objectives.

This view is very hard to reconcile with recent foreign intervention(s) by the US.

It's true in a sense, but if you share my perspective that America has not prosecuted these wars aggressively enough in order to pander to the suicidal and bleeding heart left-wing of the country that values the lives of enemies more than American soldiers, you'll see my point. Consider that America is still at war with a "society" of savages and barbarians in Afghanistan. Why is that? Because America isn't really willing to crush its enemies due to some misplaced concern for the lives of "innocent people".

No...in a post Cold War world, American exceptionalism will recede and return to its historic footprint, if only because it can't afford to do otherwise. At times it is comical when other nationals wish/want to marshall American power to their own purpose based on an erroneous or dated understanding of American foreign and domestic policy interests.

Perhaps that's true. But I'm not one of those nationals. I think there's a strong argument to be made for a more humble foreign policy from America. But when I say humble, I don't necessarily mean not intervening military with enemies important interests are threatened, but I mean not trying to "win hearts and minds" of people who are indoctrinated into hating you and simply "mowing the lawn" when they get out of line rather than trying to upgrade unworthy societies into the exclusive club of modern civilization. I will never understand the perspective of some Americans (including Bush and Obama) who think that somehow Western democracy is a universal ideal that all peoples strive for. Let them kill each other, it's not America's problem. And if the animals get out of line and their problems spill over into American/Western interests, America should just "mow the lawn", so to speak.

[Bob]

ICC doesn't receive funding from the UN...

The only thing that's funny is how you think the ICC is somehow some independent entity from the UN. It is an institution established to enforce the "laws" passed by the UN. It adheres to "international law" as defined by the UN. It was established following mobilization at the UN to create a kangaroo court to "prosecute crimes" as defined by them. The ICC works hand-in-hand with the same NGOs that politicize the UN. The same types of people work for both institutions. As far as funding goes, it's exactly the same as the UN - with the civilized, modern countries paying the entire way (I think the USA pays about 25% of the cost of the ICC). The ICC is part of the same "internationalist" system that the UN is a part of.

Put simply, the ICC gets its money from the same place the UN does, even though it doesn't get money directly from the UN. It's essentially the same thing.

This kinda stupidity reminds me of a funny episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm, where Larry lends ten thousand dollars to this "friend" of his. When Larry finds out that this "friend" of his is hosting a mega expensive party and that Larry wasn't invited, Larry confronts this "friend" and states that he is in fact paying for this party to which he hasn't been invited. Know what his "friend" says? "Oh, Larry, I used that ten thousand dollars for something else." It's the same stupid shit you're trying to peddle in here with your imaginary "independence" of the ICC. What "independence" really means, in this context, is non-accountability to those who actually pay for it.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Bob

[Guest American Woman]

wyly, on 25 September 2011 - 10:22 AM, said: the ICC is not part of the UN

Oh yes it is!

oh no it's not!...

If you had looked at his link, you would have seen that it's for "the International Computing Centre (ICC)..."

[bush_cheney2004]

....I will never understand the perspective of some Americans (including Bush and Obama) who think that somehow Western democracy is a universal ideal that all peoples strive for. Let them kill each other, it's not America's problem. And if the animals get out of line and their problems spill over into American/Western interests, America should just "mow the lawn", so to speak.

This view discounts America's actual history, including a civil war that killed more Americans than any foreign adventure. It's not that other nationals may/may not strive for such things, but that "democracy", with all of its shortcomings is the framework within which America can/has been most successful, if only because it knows how to best exert influence in such a system without the need for direct military confrontation. When this is lacking, military force can be applied as needed (i.e. "big stick", "soft glove", "iron fist").

As to your other point, America as isolationist has been roundly rejected for a number of reasons and historical experiences. America is not at war with Afghanistan. It is precisely because America faces no real military equal that a total vanquishing is not required; Israel could do the same in its regional conflicts but has not done so either.

Edited September 26, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[wyly]

The only thing that's funny is how you think the ICC is somehow some independent entity from the UN. It is an institution established to enforce the "laws" passed by the UN. It adheres to "international law" as defined by the UN. It was established following mobilization at the UN to create a kangaroo court to "prosecute crimes" as defined by them. The ICC works hand-in-hand with the same NGOs that politicize the UN. The same types of people work for both institutions. As far as funding goes, it's exactly the same as the UN - with the civilized, modern countries paying the entire way (I think the USA pays about 25% of the cost of the ICC). The ICC is part of the same "internationalist" system that the UN is a part of.

Put simply, the ICC gets its money from the same place the UN does, even though it doesn't get money directly from the UN. It's essentially the same thing.

This kinda stupidity reminds me of a funny episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm,

kangaroo court bob , maybe you have a list of cases where poor defenseless criminals that have been prosecuted unfairly bob, I'll wait for your list... ..

I imagine there must be a number of israelis crapping their pants at the thought of being hauled in front of the ICC...

the stupidity is all yours bob the US does not fund the ICC....

Consolidated Appropriations FY2000

HR 3194 became Public Law 106-114, Sections 705-706

November 29, 1999

Prohibits any funds from being "obligated for use by, or for support of, the International Criminal Court."

[Bob]

Wyly, you're right - I mistakenly indicated that the USA directly funds the ICC. I noticed that error prior to your correction, last night, as it were. My point remains the same, however, where the USA still picks up the slack of these other nations who choose to fund the ICC in every other dimension. Whether it's Europe and Canada freeloading off of American security expenditures or most of the world freeloading of America's sponsorship of 25% of the UN and all other "international" emergency aid endeavors.

It's exactly like the Curb Your Enthusiasm episode, where these countries pay for the ICC only by virtue of America picking up the slack in so many other dimensions. "Oh, I didn't use that ten thousand dollars for the ICC".

[Bob]

And it certainly is a kangaroo court, with no authority to determine anything.

[lukin]

I found this site interesting. It's plenty of reading, but gives many good examples of why the UN is completely corrupt and useless, not to mention a complete waste of money.

http://www.akdart.com/un.html

[wyly]

Wyly, you're right - I mistakenly indicated that the USA directly funds the ICC. I noticed that error prior to your correction, last night, as it were. My point remains the same, however, where the USA still picks up the slack of these other nations who choose to fund the ICC in every other dimension. Whether it's Europe and Canada freeloading off of American security expenditures or most of the world freeloading of America's sponsorship of 25% of the UN and all other "international" emergency aid endeavors.

It's exactly like the Curb Your Enthusiasm episode, where these countries pay for the ICC only by virtue of America picking up the slack in so many other dimensions. "Oh, I didn't use that ten thousand dollars for the ICC".

you keep piling the bullshit higher and deeper bob, how far up your arse are you pulling out this crap from, up to your elbow no doubt...the USA actively campaigned against countries that were considering joining the ICC by threatening aid withdrawals and did exactly that...BIA policy punished any country that signed on to the ICC...

Edited September 28, 2011 by wyly

[charter.rights]

you keep piling the bullshit higher and deeper bob, how far up your arse are you pulling out this crap from, up to your elbow know doubt...the USA actively campaigned against countries that were considering joining the ICC by threatening aid withdrawals and did exactly that...BIA policy punished any country that signed on to the ICC...

Bob doesn't let the facts get in the way of his opinion.

[wyly]

And it certainly is a kangaroo court, with no authority to determine anything.

you were wrong about the ICC being a UN organization...you were wrong about the US funding for the ICC...you were wrong about the US funding the ICC through third parties...you are unable to come up with a list of cases to back up "kangaroo" court charges...you must have an endless supply of crap up there bob, perhaps if you get your arm in up to your shoulder you can come up with some more.....