Discussion About the United Nations

[DrDNA]

Here is a place for all good Science Forums readers to discuss what you love or hate about the UN.

 

If you have an opinion about the UN or just want to make a comment, please post it here.

 

For example:

Do you feel that the organization is effective or not.

What have they done right?

What have they done wrong?

What might you change about the UN if you could do so?

Should the UN even exist?

What should the UN's mandate be?

Should they have control over US military forces?

Share your conspiracy theories.

Anything else?

 

 

I'll get the ball rolling.

To start with, I feel that the UN is a self serving, largely ineffective, corrupt organization which sits on its hands until the US must or volunteers to do its dirty work.

As an example of corruption, I would like to cite the "oil for food" scandal in which the Secretary General's own son, Kojo, was directly involved and Sadam Hussein was a major beneficiary. 2 of Kofi Anan's own memos even implicated him in the scandal. Sadam Hussein and his cohorts made billions and huge sums of money were funneled into Al Queda.

As an example of ineffectiveness which led to the death of millions, I would like to cite the genocide which took place in Rwanda, where the UN security forces were "keeping the peace".

Thanks!

[iNow]

I think too few nations are willing to give up their own sovereignty, and this very fact serves as the biggest obstacle for the UN to truly be effective. The UN may, however, serve as one of the first steps toward global governance, which may not be such a bad thing once the wrinkles get ironed out.

 

 

Perhaps the League of Nations is the first true World Series.

[Dak]

I'll get the ball rolling.

to start with, I feel that the UN is a self serving, largely ineffective, corrupt organization orgainization which sits on its hands until the US must or volunteers to do its dirty work.

 

umm... can you support that claim? I'm taking 'dirty work' to be the military peace-keeping, btw.

 

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/fatalities/StatsByNationalityMission%202.pdf

 

the Uk has suffered more fatalities on peacekeeping missions than the US. so have sweden. bangladesh, canada, france, ghana, india, ireland, nigeria, pakistan, zambia

 

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/2007/sept07_2.pdf

 

last month, pakistan contributed the most troops (10,629) whilst the US contributed 307 (coming 43rd in the list of troop contributors)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations#Financing

 

The US pays the most, but not much more than japan, and the EU pays more than the US, which is overlooking the fact that the US only pays a percentage of what it should:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_United_Nations#The_U.S._debt_issue

 

so there

[Pangloss]

What might be a useful angle in this discussion (as well as the larger issue of mainstream Americans annoyed with the UN) would be to look at what benefits Americans have gained by their support for the UN over the years.

 

One of the problems with rapidly increasing communications technology and the normal human weakness for differentiating between singular examples and larger trends is that we end up seeing things like Rwanda as examples of worsening, when in fact they may be better seen as exceptions to the rule. It seems to me that the general trend worldwide over the last 50 years has been towards LESSENING violence, atrocity, dictatorial rule, lack of religious freedom, lack of academic freedom, and so forth. If that's true (and I admit it's just a personal opinion), isn't it likely that the UN has played a role in that?

 

But I was just looking in the Wikipedia (which I readily admit is not a reliable source), and there's an article there about something called the "Human Security Report 2005", which says:

 

The Human Security Report 2005 is a report outlining declining world trends of global violence from the early 1990s to 2003. The study reports major worlwide declines in the number of armed conflicts, genocides, human rights abuses, military coups and international crises, as well as in the number of battle-related deaths per armed conflict.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Security_Report_2005

 

But there is criticism in that article, including the following:

 

For example, the latest UN Human Development Report agrees that the number of conflicts has declined in the last decade, but claims that the wars of the past 15 years have exterminated a larger number of human lives.

 

So like I said, I can't back up the point, but perhaps others here can offer more detail along these lines.

[DrDNA]

umm... can you support that claim? I'm taking 'dirty work' to be the military peace-keeping, btw.

 

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/fatalities/StatsByNationalityMission%202.pdf

 

the Uk has suffered more fatalities on peacekeeping missions than the US. so have sweden. bangladesh, canada, france, ghana, india, ireland, nigeria, pakistan, zambia

 

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/2007/sept07_2.pdf

 

last month, pakistan contributed the most troops (10,629) whilst the US contributed 307 (coming 43rd in the list of troop contributors)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations#Financing

 

The US pays the most, but not much more than japan, and the EU pays more than the US, which is overlooking the fact that the US only pays a percentage of what it should:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_United_Nations#The_U.S._debt_issue

 

so there

 

 

But is there peace in those regions where the UN forces have fallen?

You have pointed out the lack of US support (monetary and cannon fodder) for the UN, which I believe may be a bad thing or a good thing, depending on one's perpective.

 

Brave blue helmeted troops from assorted countries are dieing "keeping peace" as your links show. Towards what end?

 

The UN is spending billions of US dollars, Euors, Japanese Yen and money from other countries.

But what have they accomplished?

I'm not denying that they spent it, but on just what exactly? "Oil for food"-like programs that benefit a la billions of dollars to Al Queda, corrupt dictators, the Seretary General's son?

My exwife can spend money like crazy too. I suspect that they have similar spending habits......but are 20 different brands of shampoo for one bathroom a necessary expenditure?

 

BYW: I actually believe that the UN is a great IDEA. But it just doesn't seem to be accomplishing much in a positive sense. That is unfortunate because the world could get a lot done working together. Along similar lines, "one world order" is a great IDEA too. Too bad we don't live in a perfect world yet (will we ever?) where those great ideas would work.

 

Kum Ba Ya

[ParanoiA]

the Uk has suffered more fatalities on peacekeeping missions than the US. so have sweden. bangladesh' date=' canada, france, ghana, india, ireland, nigeria, pakistan, zambia

 

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co...7/sept07_2.pdf[/quote']

 

So what? It's not our fault the UK follows faulty judgement. We shoudn't have lost a single one. The congress didn't declare war or anything, just sending our people to die for fluffy ends that we never agreed to and that our constitution isn't supposed to allow. In fact, I'm not sure how we get around it.

 

last month' date=' pakistan contributed the most troops (10,629) whilst the US contributed 307 (coming 43rd in the list of troop contributors)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations#Financing[/quote']

 

Now if we could just get that down to zero...

 

The US pays the most' date=' but not much more than japan, and the EU pays more than the US, which is overlooking the fact that the US only pays a percentage of what it should:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...._debt _issue[/quote']

 

Did I read that correctly that we're supposed to pay 25%? Of what? If that means what I think it does, then why such a disproportionate charge?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the lack of payment has to do with the UN basically being a "bash america" conference that enjoys american money and equipment, but doesn't want to listen to american concerns.

[iNow]

Brave blue helmeted troops from assorted countries are dieing "keeping peace" as your links show. Towards what end?

 

The UN is spending billions of US dollars, Euors, Japanese Yen and money from other countries.

But what have they accomplished?

I'm not denying that they spent it, but on just what exactly? "Oil for food"-like programs that benefit a la billions of dollars to Al Queda, corrupt dictators, the Seretary General's son?

 

Define "peace?" They bring water and food to regions in need. They bring medicine to countries in devastating peril. They bring soldiers to areas with turmoil, and they bring key regional leaders to the proverbial table for discussion and diplomacy. They provide a place where concerns can be voiced and awareness raised.

 

They've had their share of ups and downs, and clearly no organization likes the smear of scandal. However, I personally argue that they have done FAR greater good than any one or two scandals can take away. Also, if you're curious where the money is being spent (see my comments above re: water, food, medicine, and soldiers), then you can google the hell out of their balance sheets.

 

When I was doing this, I found this really good article which gives a "stately" overview of their mission, successes, failures, and overall effect:

 

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2005&m=September&x=20050907104308dmslahrellek0.2560236

 

 

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the lack of payment has to do with the UN basically being a "bash america" conference that enjoys american money and equipment, but doesn't want to listen to american concerns.

 

I appreciate your frustration, but I suggest this has nothing to do at all with the UN. It has to do with the perception across the globe of the USA. The members of the UN represent their people, and when you hear these types comments (which you described as "bashing"), it is coming from the mouths and pens of global representatives, it is coming from representatives of countries across the world who happen to be in attendance of said conferences... not from the UN itself. Your frustration is with how these countries perceive us, not with the forum at which they express these perceptions.

 

Recall though, calling a duck a duck often has nothing to do with bashing, but rather frequently reflects certain important truths.

[ParanoiA]

They bring water and food to regions in need. They bring medicine to countries in devastating peril. They bring soldiers to areas with turmoil, and they bring key regional leaders to the proverbial table for discussion and diplomacy. They provide a place where concerns can be voiced and awareness raised.

 

This is the capacity of the UN I appreciate. And I agree, I'm not going to throw corruption in their face, although it is quite a legitimate negative. I would like to see our private sector get involved here. To force others to contribute their money to our causes, is unethical - which is what is happening when we tax our countrymen and then use their money for stuff like this. Instead, persuasion should be used to gain funds to contribute to this effort. And I would be proud of that involvement, as long as it's short of military obligation.

 

I appreciate your frustration' date=' but I suggest this has nothing to do at all with the UN. It has to do with the perception across the globe of the USA. The members of the UN represent their people, and when you hear these types comments (which you described as "bashing"), it is coming from the mouths and pens of global representatives, it is coming from representatives of countries across the world who happen to be in attendance of said conferences... not from the UN itself. Your frustration is with how these countries perceive us, not with the forum at which they express these perceptions.

 

Recall though, calling a duck a duck often has nothing to do with bashing, but rather frequently reflects certain important truths.[/quote']

 

Right, but the point is why should we pay millions of dollars just listen to everyone bitch at us? Would you pay 25% of the bill for the neighborhood to get together each month and bitch about you and your family? Especially when you consider their complaints to be more about their frustration with your outperforming them, due to their inferior governing systems and policies which they refuse to change?

 

We're capitalists and I'm unapologetic about it. Consequently we manage to hog a disproportionate amount of the world's resources. But we don't do it by gun point. Those resources are sold to us. No one is complaining about cashing our checks. If they want to trade with us then they're going to compete with us. That's life. We're pretty good at it since our form of government compliments the natural state of international economy.

 

I'm not saying that's the only thing they complain about, and I'm not even saying it isn't legitimate. But, to do nothing but complain and appeal to the UN about the big bad america is somewhat ridiculous and pointless.

 

It may be an invalid analogy, but I liken this to how americans complain about Wal-mart. They complain about how Wal-mart ruins small businesses, particularly in small towns, and pays cheap salaries with no benefits and so forth - and then these same people go to Wal-mart to get their groceries. That's chicken fodder. I don't appreciate Wal-mart either, and I want them out of business and I will throw a block party on my dime if it were to ever actually happen (not!) - and I don't shop there...ever.

[iNow]

Right, but the point is why should we pay millions of dollars just listen to everyone bitch at us? Would you pay 25% of the bill for the neighborhood to get together each month and bitch about you and your family? Especially when you consider their complaints to be more about their frustration with your outperforming them, due to their inferior governing systems and policies which they refuse to change?

 

So basically you're saying that it's okay to support them with our wealth, but only if they say nice things about us?

[ParanoiA]

So basically you're saying that it's okay to support them with our wealth, but only if they say nice things about us?

 

No I'm saying it's okay to support them with the wealth provided by volunteers, folks that have been persuaded to give up their money for your UN cause. And I'm saying I would only contribute to that cause if we're actually going to DO something. If I'm to sit and listen to everyone cry and moan and not DO anything about it, then it's a waste of time and clearly serves for therapeutic reasons only.

[JohnB]

I think the biggest obstacle to the UN being effective is Article 2 Section 7 of the Charter.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

While this section has been ignored in the past its existence means that any intervention plan has a legal minefield to pass through first.

[iNow]

No I'm saying it's okay to support them with the wealth provided by volunteers, folks that have been persuaded to give up their money for your UN cause. And I'm saying I would only contribute to that cause if we're actually going to DO something. If I'm to sit and listen to everyone cry and moan and not DO anything about it, then it's a waste of time and clearly serves for therapeutic reasons only.

 

My apologies. I see your stance now. You were editing your post as I submitted mine.

[Dak]

So what? It's not our fault the UK follows faulty judgement. We shoudn't have lost a single one. The congress didn't declare war or anything, just sending our people to die for fluffy ends that we never agreed to and that our constitution isn't supposed to allow. In fact, I'm not sure how we get around it.

 

firstly, my points were just as a rebuttal of drDNA's claim that the US did all the dirty work.

 

secondly, you did agree to it. it's not as if the UN is stealing your troops and money: these are troops and money that you have agreed to give. So, y'know, if your not happy about that, maybe you should blame your own govournment, and not the UN?

 

 

Did I read that correctly that we're supposed to pay 25%? Of what? If that means what I think it does, then why such a disproportionate charge?

 

it's proportionate to the earnings of a country (i.e., your country has the biggest economy, so is charged the most) but is also capped at a certain level (else the US would pay more)

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the lack of payment has to do with the UN basically being a "bash america" conference that enjoys american money and equipment, but doesn't want to listen to american concerns.

 

no, it just doesn't want to listen only to US concerns. it's a global organisation of virtually every country in the world, so cant really be US-centric.

 

This isn't an america bash -- the UK acts the same when it can get away with it, and the UK, france, and italy acted the same in the league of nations -- but just because you're the more powerful country doesn't mean that you can get your way in every instance, and if the UN allows itself to be a 'do what US want's' club, the other states will leave.

 

As demonstrated by the UK, france, and italy in the league of nations, which had some measure of success in preventing war, but ultimately fell because the biggest members wanted to get their own way whilst forsing the smaller countries to abide by their rules.

 

I actually believe that the UN is a great IDEA. But it just doesn't seem to be accomplishing much in a positive sense.

 

You have to bear in mind that the UN is, by nature, one big compromise. we can't just, for example, go invade iran because western powers don't like the fact that they might be getting nukes, because russia and middle-eastern (sans israel) states are quite happy with them getting nukes. Similarly, we can't just go invade israel to take their nukes, or russia/the US to take theirs.

 

The entire thing is set up as a compromise to enforse cease-fires, ferry aid, observe wars to make sure the armies follow conventions, etc. it's not their job to go bitch-slap aggressive countries, otherwize most countries wouldn't agree to be part of it.

[ParanoiA]

secondly, you did agree to it. it's not as if the UN is stealing your troops and money: these are troops and money that you have agreed to give. So, y'know, if your not happy about that, maybe you should blame your own govournment, and not the UN?

 

Oh, I do blame my own government. That's the position I'm arguing from. And that's part of my reasoning for blaming them. I don't blame the UN for anything actually. My argument is from the perspective that we shouldn't be part of the UN in any military capacity.

 

Your other points are valid as well. Ultimately, it goes against the principles and the moral obligation that we owe to our countrymen over all others to police the world with or without the UN. Our only cooperative relationship should be on humanitarian matters that doesn't involve our military, but "membership dues" are out of the question. I suppose if you want to convince the people here to cough up the cash that's cool, but I can't agree with robbing our citizens to be a part of this club. Sorry.

[Sisyphus]

Yes, I believe the UN has been spectacularly effective, and I believe that most of the problems people have with it stem from a misunderstanding of its mandate.

 

The UN was founded following World War II largely to prevent that type of conflict from ever happening again by harnessing the unprecedented spirit of global cooperation which resulted from that war. It was a means for nations large and small alike to meet openly and discuss their common problems.

 

It was NEVER supposed to usurp sovereignty of any nation. The question, "should they have control of US military forces" doesn't even make sense. "They" are us, we are them. And collectively, "they" never asked for control of anyone's military. Those blue helmets do NOT represent a "UN army." They represent nations deploying forces as part of agreements reached under the framework of the UN. That's ALL.

 

So what has the UN accomplished? A great, great deal, I believe, although its very nature makes it difficult to quantify. It withstood a great test of its original purpose admirably early on, in the Korean War. I think any South Korean would look at you like a crazy person if you called the UN "useless."

 

It is that precedent and the spirit behind it, I believe, which has done such great service to the entire world. It is almost inconceivable, now, that two powerful nations would go to war with one another. Why? Because there really is a "global community" now, a community that could never have happened had not all the great powers of the world made a serious commitment to cosmopolitan ideals after seeing the what its opposite could cause in two world wars. We have our differences, yes, and we certainly have powerful competitors, but we don't have powerful enemies. And by "we" I don't just mean the United States, I mean the community of all responsible nations, The U.S., the EU, etc. You would have to be very blind to history not to see just how miraculous it is that such a "we" even exists. Do we seriously want to turn our backs on that, just because for the moment we have the strength to push anyone else around on our own?

[Pangloss]

Yah the South Korea example needs to be brought up more often, IMO. We've talked about it here a couple of times but I don't think I've seen it mentioned anywhere in the public discourse, the general media, and so forth, at least in relation with this topic.

 

I thought that last paragraph was interesting as well. It also makes me think that perhaps the positive benefits are of such a slight and long-term nature that it's hard to see the benefit on a daily basis. It took decades for South Korea to recover and reach prominence in its region, for example.

 

Rehashing my question about presenting benefits to American critics, I think a reasonable point there would be that we saw a number of direct benefits to that situation, ranging in scope from cheap television sets to lives saved from lack of war.

[ParanoiA]

It was NEVER supposed to usurp sovereignty of any nation. The question, "should they have control of US military forces" doesn't even make sense. "They" are us, we are them. And collectively, "they" never asked for control of anyone's military. Those blue helmets do NOT represent a "UN army." They represent nations deploying forces as part of agreements reached under the framework of the UN. That's ALL.

 

And that "UN" painted on the side of their armored vehicles and tanks is just a figment of my imagination huh?

 

Yes, you have nations deploying forces "under the framework of the UN" - while our constitution states that our forces should be deployed under the framework of the US - which means congress, not other foreign governments. That's where the concern for sovereignty comes in. It's not an outright sell out - it's mushy, gray and corruptive - even worse.

 

We have no business cooperating in policing the world. It's not any more justified than being an aggressive imperialist. Best to lead and spread freedom by persuasion and example.

[Sisyphus]

And that "UN" painted on the side of their armored vehicles and tanks is just a figment of my imagination huh?

 

No, it's an international symbol that those troops are on a UN-related mission.

 

Yes, you have nations deploying forces "under the framework of the UN" - while our constitution states that our forces should be deployed under the framework of the US - which means congress, not other foreign governments. That's where the concern for sovereignty comes in. It's not an outright sell out - it's mushy, gray and corruptive - even worse.

 

US forces are deployed by the US. There's nothing in the Constitution that says our armed forces can't be deployed in cooperation with other sovereign nations, or even that they can't be obliged to as part of the conditions of a treaty ratified by Congress. That is not the case with the UN, where no nation is obliged to participate in any particular operation, incidentally, but it could be. In fact, the United States has been doing just that since before there even was a Constitution, and would not exist without such cooperation. (I'm talking about French assistance in the Revolutionary War, in case that's not clear.)

 

We have no business cooperating in policing the world. It's not any more justified than being an aggressive imperialist. Best to lead and spread freedom by persuasion and example.

 

That's a valid position. (But it's not a valid Constitutional argument.) But is coming to the assistance of another nation that asks for assistance really no better than imperialism? Were Britain and France being imperialists in obliging themselves to come to Poland's defense in WW2? Could not a great deal of trouble been avoided if more nations had similarly obliged themselves, even in spirit if not active treaty? Was every member of the UN somehow collectively being an imperialist entity in containing the Chinese and North Koreans in the Korean War?

[ParanoiA]

No, it's an international symbol that those troops are on a UN-related mission.

 

Yes, it recognizes the UN, not the country that's actually doing the mission. It symbolizes the UN as a force of its own - a necessary first step towards centralization of global power. I don't agree with this.

 

US forces are deployed by the US. There's nothing in the Constitution that says our armed forces can't be deployed in cooperation with other sovereign nations, or even that they can't be obliged to as part of the conditions of a treaty ratified by Congress. That is not the case with the UN, where no nation is obliged to participate in any particular operation, incidentally, but it could be. In fact, the United States has been doing just that since before there even was a Constitution, and would not exist without such cooperation. (I'm talking about French assistance in the Revolutionary War, in case that's not clear.)

 

I don't have a problem with cooperating with other sovereign nations for a military end. However, it should only be in the case of real war, when our interests or lives are directly being threatened - not preventive police exercises that have nothing to do with our interests. Rationalizing "prevention" in the form of troops, weapons, tanks and so forth to play police force is a sticky mess that we should not be involved in. Alliances are not forgotten, and the future is not foreseeable. Therefore tangling alliances should be a rare - extremely rare - necessity.

 

Remember, my moral obligation is to my countrymen, which will always be higher in priority than anything, or anyone else. And I believe in the principle of non-intervention, militarily. Similarly to the principle of free speech, there are negative consequences and dynamics related to such things, but to then cherry pick exceptions is to undermine the value and reliability of principle. In the case of intervention, it finds value in never choosing a side, never becoming imperialistic, never creating enemies regardless of "intent"...etc. These are big problems right now. America's image feeds the terror machine. And none of it would have been possible without interventionist policies.

 

That's a valid position. (But it's not a valid Constitutional argument.)

 

How is it not?

 

But is coming to the assistance of another nation that asks for assistance really no better than imperialism? Were Britain and France being imperialists in obliging themselves to come to Poland's defense in WW2?

 

Well sure, it was better than outright imperialism. But was it a good decision? We're coming at this from the black and white, non-controversial position of a naughty Germany. But what about terrorism? There are plenty of countries that call us the terrorists. There is no clear good and evil partition here - at least from the global perspective. So, any country choosing a side here is rolling the dice in terms of future consequence from such alliance. To me, a clear line of non-intervention prevents this, yet still allows alliance based on merit when we are directly threatened.

 

Could not a great deal of trouble been avoided if more nations had similarly obliged themselves, even in spirit if not active treaty? Was every member of the UN somehow collectively being an imperialist entity in containing the Chinese and North Koreans in the Korean War?

 

Absolutely. Why did they need to be contained? That was a direct imperialist agenda - ever bit as much so as North Korean agenda. The only difference is which side you happen to be on - as both sides claim justification.

 

War is rarely about right and wrong - it's about weak and strong. We fought in WWII out of self-preservation, vengence, status, posture...right or wrong is subjective. At the end of the day, the objective observation is fighting for what we claim - including land, life and resources.

[Sisyphus]

Yes, it recognizes the UN, not the country that's actually doing the mission. It symbolizes the UN as a force of its own - a necessary first step towards centralization of global power. I don't agree with this.

 

But it's not a force of its own, nor is there any mechanism in place by which it could be one. So I disagree that it's meant to symbolize "the UN" as an entity with military force behind it. It would be more apt, I think, to say it symbolizes that there is a consensus among the community of nations in agreement with their actions. Maybe you don't see a difference, but I do.

 

I don't have a problem with cooperating with other sovereign nations for a military end. However, it should only be in the case of real war, when our interests or lives are directly being threatened - not preventive police exercises that have nothing to do with our interests. Rationalizing "prevention" in the form of troops, weapons, tanks and so forth to play police force is a sticky mess that we should not be involved in. Alliances are not forgotten, and the future is not foreseeable. Therefore tangling alliances should be a rare - extremely rare - necessity.

 

And I believe it's impossible to speak that broadly about every conceivable situation. Yes, sometimes we are better off staying out of it, and sometimes we are better off getting involved. History has provided plenty of examples of both.

 

Remember, my moral obligation is to my countrymen, which will always be higher in priority than anything, or anyone else. And I believe in the principle of non-intervention, militarily. Similarly to the principle of free speech, there are negative consequences and dynamics related to such things, but to then cherry pick exceptions is to undermine the value and reliability of principle. In the case of intervention, it finds value in never choosing a side, never becoming imperialistic, never creating enemies regardless of "intent"...etc. These are big problems right now. America's image feeds the terror machine. And none of it would have been possible without interventionist policies.

 

Again, of course there are pros and cons to any policy, in any situation. I disagree with the analogy to free speech. There, it is certainly the case that "to then cherry pick exceptions is to undermine the value and reliability of principle." And with free speech, that's critical, for reasons we need not debate. But what is the principle that you're defending here? What is the point of sticking to the "principle" of non-intervention, if not for pragmatic or moral reasons? Why would I want to live in a society that held that particular principle sacred?

 

How is it not?

 

Because it doesn't go against anything in the Constitution? I'm not sure what you want me to say...

 

War is rarely about right and wrong - it's about weak and strong. We fought in WWII out of self-preservation, vengence, status, posture...right or wrong is subjective. At the end of the day, the objective observation is fighting for what we claim - including land, life and resources.

 

Actually, I agree, and contrary to what you may think, I'm not claiming any action we've taken has been black and white, good and evil. But non-controversial? Well... yes. And that's important, because it indicates near-universal consensus. I'm ok with the idea that if most of the world feels you need to be stopped out of collective self-preservation, then they have a forum for discussing it and agreed upon (again, by consensus) rules for maybe doing something about it. I understand that that's not very satisfying from the perspective of an inflexible idealist who thinks things should be black and white, but hey, it works for Wikipedia.

[ParanoiA]

It would be more apt, I think, to say it symbolizes that there is a consensus among the community of nations in agreement with their actions. Maybe you don't see a difference, but I do.

 

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. To me, that symbol is only recognizable in the way you describe if you believe it. Fact is, if the US participates in a UN action, you can plaster UN all over everything and today it's still interpreted as a US action.

 

Which is ironic, since I believe it erases the face of a multi-nation supported action and replaces it with one face. In fact, one could argue that by doing that, it's not obvious which particular nations are actually involved in a given action - purposely blurring this distinction to make way for a one world order scenario. Not a conspiracy, just an incremental step toward that end.

 

But what is the principle that you're defending here? What is the point of sticking to the "principle" of non-intervention, if not for pragmatic or moral reasons? Why would I want to live in a society that held that particular principle sacred?

 

For reasons I listed before. It finds value in never choosing a side, never becoming imperialistic, never creating enemies regardless of "intent"...etc. These are big problems right now. The moral reason is that we don't allow ourselves to "judge" nations as a military, since right and wrong is subjective. In my mind, it's about objectivity. One man's idea of aggression is another man's idea of liberation.

 

Country A invades country B and the popular concensus is that it's an act of aggression. While history may show that Country B imperialistically invaded country A in the past and took part of their country. The present "aggression" is taking this part back. Who's really right or wrong here? Not that I'm advocating past conflicts be relevent today, but to deny a country the right to regroup and respond - even over the course of decades - doesn't seem right either.

 

That's why the only truly objective engagement, to me, is in response to a direct threat.

 

Because it doesn't go against anything in the Constitution? I'm not sure what you want me to say...

 

The fact that congress is supposed to "declare war", implies "policing" is not an option. Albeit, that's an inferred position. I guess I'd have to go back and read it in it's entirety to be sure, but my impression has been that non-intervention was a strong theme in the constitution concerning international matters.