U.N. On Its Way Out (Congress Says So)

[Richard G]

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2003/4/2/222034

I couldn't agree more.

[ssibal]

This is good.

[Supercharts]

I would go along with ditching France from the Security Council and replacing them with India. The world's largest democracy should have a voice on the Security Council.

[Jedi Knight]

The UN is filled with Marxist morons and the sooner the US disposes of it, the safer the world will be.

JK

[Advocate]

We will see how this goes. There have been attempts to do this before and all have failed. However, I don't recall there ever being quite so much anti-UN sentiment as there is right now, so maybe it will happen this time, but I wouldn't count on it.

[corplinx]

Its a newsmac story and I dont feel like reading any newsmax stories today.

Let me just say this, I think much of the anti-UN sentiment is misdirected. I think the real bone is with the security council.

The UN is a nifty little debate club, leave it be. The security council however has some inherent design flaws.

[jj]

Originally posted by Richard G
http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2003/4/2/222034

I couldn't agree more.

Well, the fact that the article begins to mislead in the first two sentences, is obviously slanted, engages in misrepresentation, and a variety of other nonsense suggests to me that relying on this article as a "valid" source might be a bit ill-founded.

In any case, it would be devastatingly stupid to toss out the UN, regardless of what most of the participants are. Only a total idiot chases their competitors away to where they can't watch them.

And anyone who would suggest otherwise is factually attempting to put the USA at a serious disadvantage in world politics, no matter what they THINK they're doing.

[Richard G]

Well, the fact that the article begins to mislead in the first two sentences, is obviously slanted, engages in misrepresentation, and a variety of other nonsense suggests to me that relying on this article as a "valid" source might be a bit ill-founded.

Fact: House Bill HR:1146 is on the floor of Congress to toss the U.N.

Fact: Called my Representatives, and they are in support of it.

In any case, it would be devastatingly stupid to toss out the UN, regardless of what most of the participants are. Only a total idiot chases their competitors away to where they can't watch them.

Fact: We don't need the U.N. to watch our enemies. We can see anything we want, anytime we want. We have embassies to engage in direct diplomacy with those we choose to, or not if we choose to.

Politics be damned. Some things are more important than pandering, at mt expense, to whiny, snotty nosed bratts.

[Skeptical Greg]

On a similar note..

I'll try to find something more definitive and start a new thread, but I was hearing on the news, about an appropriations bill for the rebuilding of Iraq, which will include language, forbidding any of the funds being spent on projects with links to France, Germany, Russia & etc....

I certainly hope the final product appears in this form..

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Supercharts
I would go along with ditching France from the Security Council and replacing them with India. The world's largest democracy should have a voice on the Security Council.

Agreed! Or perhaps Japan or Germany since they are large economies. Who is France on the world stage at this time?

After I wrote the above, I decided to look at a list of the top economies and I was pretty surprised.

1 United States
2 China
3 Japan
4 Germany
5 India
6 France
7 United Kingdom
8 Italy
9 Brazil
10 Mexico
11 Canada
12 Spain
13 South Korea
14 Russia
15 Indonesia
16 Australia
17 Turkey
18 Thailand
19 Argentina
20 Netherlands

France is #6, much higher than I though and higher than the UK. And Russia way down at #14???

Maybe Russia and Britain should be the ones to lose their SC seats?


Lurker

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by ssibal
This is good. Indeed. It's about time that "might makes right" is once again recognized as the best World Order. Who the h*ll set up this institution where all voices can be heard, anyway?! What a dense idea. Clearly, a nation's military prowess should be the only factor determining world affairs. That's how it was in the good old days, and if it was good enough for my Granddad, it's good enough for me.

Lead on, Christian soldiers!

[Richard G]

Pffft! Another poster who is free to spout off because of our spilt blood. You should be goose stepping for the Fuher shouldn't you? Oh, I forgot, our might made right.

Carry on. [in freedom]

[Douglas]

"Indeed. It's about time that "might makes right" is once again recognized as the best World Order. Who the h*ll set up this institution where all voices can be heard, anyway?! What a dense idea. Clearly, a nation's military prowess should be the only factor determining world affairs. That's how it was in the good old days, and if it was good enough for my Granddad, it's good enough for me.

Lead on, Christian soldiers!"

This is very enlightened coming from you, what with you being in little ol' denmark and all. You've finally come to your senses and understand the way things are, that's nice to see.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Richard G
Pffft! Another poster who is free to spout off because of our spilt blood. You should be goose stepping for the Fuher shouldn't you? Oh, I forgot, our might made right.

Carry on. [in freedom] You are so right. The arrival of the US in WWII (two years late, but so what) certainly indentures Europeans to the US forever. This is clear. Only the Leftists would claim that "gratitude doesn't mean servitude". What a bunch of whiners. Of course it does!

Ridding the world of the evil that "hearing other voices" truelly is, is paramount. The opinion of the current administration of the country with the greatest firepower, is all that matters.

[DanishDynamite]

This is very enlightened coming from you, what with you being in little ol' denmark and all. You've finally come to your senses and understand the way things are, that's nice to see. Thanks, Douglas. I can't tell you how much this means, coming from you.

[Richard G]

You are so right. The arrival of the US in WWII (two years late,

This is true, and we have learned from history, and it shall not be repeated. If the U.N. had been around during WW2, we probably would have arrived 12 years too late. We arrived right on time this time around. For some reason, other countries are bitching about that though.

Which way do they want it? Too late? Or early? Damned if we do, damned if we don't. We'll do it without anymore input from them, thank you.

[Mel]

It's a good idea and a bad idea.

I'm not so sure cutting off this avenue for debate will really be in our long term best interests. Will it play into Europe's hand and allow the French to attain even MORE power?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
You are so right. The arrival of the US in WWII (two years late, but so what) certainly indentures Europeans to the US forever. This is clear. Only the Leftists would claim that "gratitude doesn't mean servitude". What a bunch of whiners. Of course it does!

Ridding the world of the evil that "hearing other voices" truelly is, is paramount. The opinion of the current administration of the country with the greatest firepower, is all that matters.

If the US didn't help you in WW II, you are your country would be the lapdogs of the Nazis (not that you guys didn't want to give yourselves away to them).

The reason the US has the most firepower is because we are the most free. Other countries should take note of that.

JK

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Richard G


This is true, and we have learned from history, and it shall not be repeated. If the U.N. had been around during WW2, we probably would have arrived 12 years too late. We arrived right on time this time around. For some reason, other countries are bitching about that though.

Which way do they want it? Too late? Or early? Damned if we do, damned if we don't. We'll do it without anymore input from them, thank you. Exactly. When the current administration knows what is right, who are we to argue? We obviously haven't got all the facts, and while we don't know which facts the administration has, I think we can all agree that they would do what is right. What possible reason could they have for not doing so?

And "looking at the larger picture" is for whimps. The picture, as I'm sure any sane person will agree, is the one presented by the current administration! D'uh! How obvious!. And still, you hear anti-Americans spout their own opinons! As if they mattered! Jeesh.

[afree87]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
The reason the US has the most firepower is because we are the most free. Other countries should take note of that.

ROFL! :D




(You are joking, aren't you?)

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


If the US didn't help you in WW II, you are your country would be the lapdogs of the Nazis (not that you guys didn't want to give yourselves away to them).

The reason the US has the most firepower is because we are the most free. Other countries should take note of that.

JK You are so right. Most Danes wanted to be the subjects of the Germans. Those bloody Leftists who helped thousands of Jews to Sweden, were traitors. They should have been shot.

And the revisionists who claim that Russia had anything to do with Nazi Germany's downfall are just that: Bloody revisionists! The fact is that the US saved the World.

And, as you say, the firepower of the US is directly derived from the Constitution! Which, as we all know, makes the US the only free country in the world. Anyone who says otherwise is a traitor, in my opinion.

[Skeptic]

C'mon, people... I don't believe you're falling for this.

Like the suggestions to try protestors for treason, to hang Peter Arnett, to excavate the bodies of US soldiers buried in France and move them to the States, etc., etc., etc., this suggestion has only one real goal: to get attention and look "tough".

The best answer to this sort of nonsense is to simply ignore it.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Skeptic
C'mon, people... I don't believe you're falling for this.

Like the suggestions to try protestors for treason, to hang Peter Arnett, to excavate the bodies of US soldiers buried in France and move them to the States, etc., etc., etc., this suggestion has only one real goal: to get attention and look "tough". Yet another anti-American emerges out of the mud! Get with the program, traitor, or get out.
The best answer to this sort of nonsense is to simply ignore it. Ignoring the Truth is typical of Leftists.

[ZeeGerman]

DD, my fellow European,

you're waisting your time with these wannabe supremacists. They want the US to pull out of UN? Let's say "good riddance" to them. In 6 years at the latest, the chimp will be out of the White House and the reasonable majority of the Americans (who didn't vote for the guy in the first place) will elect an different president. Meanwhile, they will have noticed that world economies can very well thrive even if the US boycotts everybody who is "against them" aka "not in their pocket". Let them drink their piss poor beer, drive their ****** cars and munch themselves fat on Mc Junk Food until they realize that the best stuff they know is imported.

:D

Zee

[Mike B.]

Dear Lord,

This forum is becoming a war zone...Yikes what about Doubt's thread?

Everyone calm down.:(

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Richard G
Pffft! Another poster who is free to spout off because of our spilt blood. You should be goose stepping for the Fuher shouldn't you? Oh, I forgot, our might made right.

Carry on. [in freedom]

Don't mind him; he's just irate that Denmark didn't even rate.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Richard G

Pffft! Another poster who is free to spout off because of our spilt blood. You should be goose stepping for the Fuher shouldn't you? Oh, I forgot, our might made right.Soviet might defeated Hitler. I hate revisionist history.

Now had you written "goose-stepping for GenSek", you would have been right; but that kinda pops your jingoistic balloon, eh?..

[Thumper]

Not to get us back on topic or anything,...

Here's the URL for the actual text of HR 1146:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.1146:

Here is a list of the sponsors in the subcommittee:
http://congress.nw.dc.us/liberty/issues/bills?bill=39551

It seems as though Rep. Chris Smith has blocked the bill, the Free Republic seems rather tiffed about it.

This leads me to a question on liberty...

If a majority of the American people support this resolution, should it be passed, regardless of the views of other people in the world?

Follow-up question: Why do foreign citizens feel that their protesting of the war should change the mind of the American president, if the policy meets with the acceptance of a majority of the Americans?

Another follow-up: An argument was made in a different forum that Canadian PM Cretien, regardless of what he personally thought about the war, should oppose it since the majority of Canadians do. Doesn't that argument hold for any democracy, regardless of whether you agree with the public opinion?

[Douglas]

"DD, my fellow European,

you're waisting your time with these wannabe supremacists. They want the US to pull out of UN? Let's say "good riddance" to them. In 6 years at the latest, the chimp will be out of the White House and the reasonable majority of the Americans (who didn't vote for the guy in the first place) will elect an different president. Meanwhile, they will have noticed that world economies can very well thrive even if the US boycotts everybody who is "against them" aka "not in their pocket". Let them drink their piss poor beer, drive their ****** cars and munch themselves fat on Mc Junk Food until they realize that the best stuff they know is imported."

Ahh yes, who better to be able to spot a "wannabe supremacist"?

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Douglas
"DD, my fellow European,

Ahh yes, who better to be able to spot a "[B]wannabe supremacist"?

Precisely Douglas!
We Germans at least learned our lesson. Hopefully you guys won't have to learn it in a similar hard way.

Zee

[Baggle]

I'm not going to try and be articulate about it, or beat around the bush, so I'll just say it....This forum is starting to really suck.

Everybody was actually posting with a sort of genuine opinion and in semi objective terms(whether you think they are morons or not) until DD, somebody who posted in Doubt's thread in agreement, an otherwise intelligent person, makes an inflamatory post, designed only for trolling, even if that decision was not made with forethought. Then the thread went to crap, and all sense of order went out the window. If somebody is an idiot, don't say it; illustrate it with otherwise benign facts! A reply can be scathing and yet read like it is as sweet as pie.

This forum is really starting to sink fast, IMO. This is just the latest example of this type of thing happening, too. I don't give two sh*ts if everyone on this forum hates each other, as long as valid points are made and rebutted. That isn't happening, as all that is going on is folks lashing out at each other with few or no valid points in their posts. It is amazingly disappointing for a group that I had such respect for, and even looked up to.

Sorry to single you out, DD, but I thought this illustrated the current situation well. I would say, "Now lets try to fix it.," but I am pretty sure few folks here who post any more have the willpower to agree to it, let alone follow through.

-Baggle

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Baggle
I'm not going to try and be articulate about it, or beat around the bush, so I'll just say it....This forum is starting to really suck.

...

Sorry to single you out, DD, but I thought this illustrated the current situation well. I would say, "Now lets try to fix it.," but I am pretty sure few folks here who post any more have the willpower to agree to it, let alone follow through.



So why don't you single out Richy boy who let go against "snotty nosed bratts" before DD even said a thing? All DD used was plain irony, not an unusual tool of debate.

And who are you anyway to lecture anybody on what and how to post? You don't like it, dont't read it.

Zee

[Thumper]

ah ja, Arrogance... nicht ich.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Thumper
ah ja, Arrogance... nicht ich.

If you tried to tell me something, I didn't get it...

Zee

[Thumper]

Baggle bildete eine gute Anmerkung. Sie ignorierten es. Lassen Sie uns zurück zu dem Thema erhalten... ok?

[Thumper]

BTW: Just how rusty is my German? =)

[a_unique_person]

"Our current situation in Iraq shows we cannot allow U.S. national security to become a matter of international consensus,” Paul stated. "We don’t need U.N. permission to go to war; only Congress can declare war under our Constitution."



Oh, the irony.

[Baggle]

If you want to tell me something, please do so in English, as I do not speak German, and I'd like to be able to accept/concede/refute anything you have to say to me.
EDIT - thanks for the clarification, Thumper. I saw my name and got antsy, feeling like people were talking behind my back. I apologize if I came off too sharply.

I singled as DD because I felt that his post, as I said, was meant only to enflame tempers and, pretty much, troll. Richard may've used opinion in his post, but I did not feel that it was to the extent that DD brought it to. Besides, Richard brought up debatable points in his post, and DD brought forth nothing that could be debated. This is why I singled out DD. I even apologized in my post for singling out DD, as I didn't mean to imply that I think he is destroying the forum, but that behavior that fits in line with what he just exhibited is contributing to the decline of the forum. Not to say that others are not free of guilt, but merely to illustrate the point I wanted to make.

Who am I to lecture anybody on how to post? Well, first of all, I wasn't attempting to lecture anyone, as I was only giving my opinion of why I think this forum is going downhill. I do not think I am anyone special, really, unless people who are not so completely emotionally attached to issues as to not be able to rationally discuss them is special these days. Other than that, no, I am nobody special, and not even particularly well educated, none of which I tried to imply to be.

I could not read it if I don't like it, but I'd rather ask people to change their behavior to something I do like(and is acceptable on a forum like this), and read everything. That argument seems rather akin to the "If you don't like it, leave!," argument used here in the US all too often. Why would I leave if I don't like something? I'd rather just vote for the change of whatever it is I do not like, or at least raise awareness on the issue.

Maybe DD's post was intended only as irony, which may very well be, but in the current state of things, I feel that is contributes little to the forum, and only serves to increase the mud slinging that is already going on here and making the forum less and less fun and interesting to read through.

This was merely my opinion, and not a personal attack on anybody. My opinion is as (un)valuable as anybody else's opinion here, but I thought perhaps somebody may agree with me, or perhaps a poster who is engaging in behavior like this may look at it in a more critical manner.

-Baggle

[Thumper]

Just a couple thoughts (and clarifications),...

1) Baggle, the German was intended to be read by ZeeGerman, not you. Essentially it mentioned that he didn't reply to what you pointed out, he only reacted to it.

2) I agree with you 100% that this thread was getting out of hand. My questions a few posts back were designed to get us back on topic. I guess they failed.

3) Unfortunately, your opinion is not of the same value as anyone else's opinion. Those who back up their opinion with facts and logic are accorded more value than those who continue illogical, personal attacks. (Not that you have done any of this.) In fact, I would place your opinion higher than some on this forum, solely because you sound like a reasonable person interested in true discussion instead of emotional attacks.

[Thumper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Oh, the irony.

Can you explain the irony? I think I understand, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

[Khalid01]

Oh gee! Isolationism! It's not like I haven't heard of that before from us Americans. I suppose isolationism is the solution to all of our problems. With isolationsim we can just let those stupid leftist Europeans take a beating for several years and then realize what a mistake that was all over again! Ladies and gentlemen, this happened twice in the 1900's, have we already forgotten how isolationism can lead to much greater problems?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Thumper


Can you explain the irony? I think I understand, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Congress hasn't actually declared war.

[Thumper]

Yay! Then we're not at war. =)

Seriously, though, doesn't this count as a war declaration, or must the declaration be less subtle?
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

[Advocate]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Congress hasn't actually declared war.

Actually, Rep. Paul took that position as well and at one point introduced a bill to try to stop the President from using military force. I don't know what happened to it though. I doubt it got as much support as this bill of his seems to be getting.

[schplurg]

The article linked in the first post of this thread:
"The choice," says Paul, "is very clear. We either follow the Constitution and republican form of government or submit to global governance. American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted by an international body."
I'm sure every country involved in the UN is compromising to some extent. Are these guys saying that the UN is fine, as long as the U.S. doesn't need to compromise at all? How could there be any type of global "governing body" without compromise? Do they think the UN should be based on our own (US)constitution and nothing more?

I'm not an expert on the UN, so I'm just asking a legitimate question.

[Thumper]

I didn't realize the UN could force the US to do anything the US didn't want to do. I mean, if the UN actually has power to force countries to follow their lead, you gotta wonder why they haven't used this power yet.

The fact is that they don't have that power. No country, no entity has that power. The UN is a deliberative body. That is, they talk. From what I remember my kindergarten teacher teaching us, we need to hold hands crossing the street, and we need to talk out our differences rationally.

(And if one of us is not rational, then the problems start.)

[Tony]

Originally posted by schplurg
Do they think the UN should be based on our own (US)constitution and nothing more?



I think it should be based on the US constitution. Is there a constitution in the world that affords more freedoms?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Tony


I think it should be based on the US constitution. Is there a constitution in the world that affords more freedoms? Let's imagine it was.

Let's imagine the countries of the world could make their own 'state laws' (like the states in the US do now). Now the UN 'senate' (with representatives from all 'states') would make the 'federal' laws, that would apply to all 'states'.

Should this United Nations' 'senate' be able to make laws, rules or regulations that the US had to accept, even if the US (alone or as part of a minority of the states/countries in the UN) voted against it?

Would you like it if they could? Would you like it if not? :confused:

[schplurg]

Tony:
I think it should be based on the US constitution. Is there a constitution in the world that affords more freedoms? Well I favor our constitution as well, as I'm sure other countries value their own equivalent "set o' rules". Unfortunately, I don't think all the other countries are going to say "Hey let's just use the US constitution! It's better than ours!". Not very realistic. That's where the compromise comes in. I'm not saying we should give up our rights, but at the same time we need to appreciate what is important to others as well. These dudes sound like "it's my way or the highway" which is exactly what would make a UN type system fail...well one reason.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Let's imagine it was.

Let's imagine the countries of the world could make their own 'state laws' (like the states in the US do now). Now the UN 'senate' (with representatives from all 'states') would make the 'federal' laws, that would apply to all 'states'.



Cool. It sounds like you are talking about some kind of global republic. Since we are speaking in the hypothetical, we need to make some more assumtions.

Are all of the countries in this global republic free countries, with a democratically elected government?

Would that be a requirment to join the global republic?

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman
DD, my fellow European,

you're waisting your time with these wannabe supremacists. They want the US to pull out of UN? Let's say "good riddance" to them. In 6 years at the latest, the chimp will be out of the White House and the reasonable majority of the Americans (who didn't vote for the guy in the first place) will elect an different president. Meanwhile, they will have noticed that world economies can very well thrive even if the US boycotts everybody who is "against them" aka "not in their pocket". Let them drink their piss poor beer, drive their ****** cars and munch themselves fat on Mc Junk Food until they realize that the best stuff they know is imported.

:D

Zee Hi Zee.

I know I'm wasting my time but this forum is a hard habit to kick. :)

I usually ignore the right-wing supremacists, but for once I decided to play with the little darlings. C'mon, can't a guy have a little fun now and then?

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Dear Lord,

This forum is becoming a war zone...Yikes what about Doubt's thread?

Everyone calm down.:( Calm down? CALM DOWN?

Okay, good idea. I've calmed down. :)

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Jocko


Don't mind him; he's just irate that Denmark didn't even rate. I have no idea what you mean but presumably it's a slur on the Danes, as usual.

[DanishDynamite]

Baggle:I'm not going to try and be articulate about it, or beat around the bush, so I'll just say it....This forum is starting to really suck.

Everybody was actually posting with a sort of genuine opinion and in semi objective terms(whether you think they are morons or not) until DD, somebody who posted in Doubt's thread in agreement, an otherwise intelligent person, makes an inflamatory post, designed only for trolling, even if that decision was not made with forethought. Interesting. You find my post to be the first inflammatory post. I suppose that Jedi's post:

"The UN is filled with Marxist morons and the sooner the US disposes of it, the safer the world will be."

is high level reasoning?
Then the thread went to crap, and all sense of order went out the window. If somebody is an idiot, don't say it; illustrate it with otherwise benign facts! A reply can be scathing and yet read like it is as sweet as pie.I was attempting to be scathing through irony. Perhaps this wasn't clear.
This forum is really starting to sink fast, IMO. This is just the latest example of this type of thing happening, too. I don't give two sh*ts if everyone on this forum hates each other, as long as valid points are made and rebutted. That isn't happening, as all that is going on is folks lashing out at each other with few or no valid points in their posts. It is amazingly disappointing for a group that I had such respect for, and even looked up to. I agree. I guess war brings out the worst in people.
Sorry to single you out, DD, but I thought this illustrated the current situation well. I would say, "Now lets try to fix it.," but I am pretty sure few folks here who post any more have the willpower to agree to it, let alone follow through. I am a little surprised at being singled out, but I agree that my posts were mainly emotional. The reason I wasn't backing up the posts with facts was of course because I was being ironic.

[DanishDynamite]

Baggle:I singled as DD because I felt that his post, as I said, was meant only to enflame tempers and, pretty much, troll. Richard may've used opinion in his post, but I did not feel that it was to the extent that DD brought it to. I obviously disagree. For some reason I find "snotty nosed bratts" and "Marxist morons" to be fairly inflammatory. You make your bed, you lie in it.
Besides, Richard brought up debatable points in his post, and DD brought forth nothing that could be debated. This is why I singled out DD. I even apologized in my post for singling out DD, as I didn't mean to imply that I think he is destroying the forum, but that behavior that fits in line with what he just exhibited is contributing to the decline of the forum. Not to say that others are not free of guilt, but merely to illustrate the point I wanted to make. What "debateable points" might that be?
I could not read it if I don't like it, but I'd rather ask people to change their behavior to something I do like(and is acceptable on a forum like this), and read everything. That argument seems rather akin to the "If you don't like it, leave!," argument used here in the US all too often. Why would I leave if I don't like something? I'd rather just vote for the change of whatever it is I do not like, or at least raise awareness on the issue. Well said.
Maybe DD's post was intended only as irony, which may very well be, but in the current state of things, I feel that is contributes little to the forum, and only serves to increase the mud slinging that is already going on here and making the forum less and less fun and interesting to read through. It was ironic, believe me.
This was merely my opinion, and not a personal attack on anybody. My opinion is as (un)valuable as anybody else's opinion here, but I thought perhaps somebody may agree with me, or perhaps a poster who is engaging in behavior like this may look at it in a more critical manner. Thanks for your post. I agree with most of what you said, except some of the bits relating to me specifically. And I'm not being ironic this time.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Tony


Cool. It sounds like you are talking about some kind of global republic. Since we are speaking in the hypothetical, we need to make some more assumtions.

Are all of the countries in this global republic free countries, with a democratically elected government?

Would that be a requirment to join the global republic? I have no idea.

I just wanted you to clarify how you want the UN to be run when you write that I think it should be based on the US constitution. Do you care to do that? :confused:

However, let me add that even if only free countries with a democratically elected government were allowed to be members, each and every member country could and would still find themselves in a minority from time to time.

[Baggle]

Sorry to keep harping on it, but I want to let you know just how I was thinking when I singled you out so that there are no hard feelings, and it doesn't look like I was trying to be a jerk to the first left-leaning person to post.

I didn't single out JK specifically because most of the time I just don't take him seriously, although I must admit that from time to time he is on the mark. Besides, I've seen his response to requests like this before, in Doubts thread specifically, and they weren't helpful.

Perhaps I used the wrong word when I said Rich brought up "debatable points," as he brought up researched facts, which may or may not have been able to be debated. "Fact: House Bill HR:1146 is on the floor of Congress to toss the U.N.; Fact: Called my Representatives, and they are in support of it.; Fact: We don't need the U.N. to watch our enemies. We can see anything we want, anytime we want. We have embassies to engage in direct diplomacy with those we choose to, or not if we choose to. " He then inserted his opinion that the UN is a group of "to whiny, snotty nosed bratts.," at the end of his post.

I singled you out DD only because I thought it illustrated my thoughts and my point the best. I thought you stepped over the line and I wanted to use that to make my point. Also, from past encounters I knew that you were an intelligent and reasonable guy from, and that lended to it as well, as I thought you may be able to post some sort of coherent response to my opinion. At least I was right on the last part.

Sorry to keep bringing it up, but I just wanted to make sure that you knew my intentions were clear.

-Baggle