Good evening Tim!
Tim Bedding wrote to Frank Reichert...
I previously asked:
> > Could you possibly define what you mean by 'values of the UN'?
To which you replied:
> I worded it badly. The idea of the UN and in particular the
> security council is to create a world order. In such an order,
> dictators like Saddam cannot get away with invading another
> country. There had to be a response.
> Responding to an invasion like that is not imperialism as
> I understand it.
The 'world order' thing, particularly as it is often rendered: a 'new
world order' obviously has a lot of people asking questions, and
worrying about the most obvious outcome. When 'The Shrub's' father
was in office about 10 years ago, he refused to define what that term
really meant, only suggesting that it might have a lot to do with
invigorating the United Nations.
Now, I have to wonder again why ANY nation, including Iraq, or the US,
or Great Britain, might find a way to justify why it might wish to
render or surrender its own sovereignty to a world government,
governed under the laws of a universal world government. Just who IS
the UN? Would you personally want to pay taxes and support such a
government? Would you feel comfortable obeying its laws, or would you
oppose such laws?
As an American, I oppose any world government authority that would
have the effect or power if it chose to, to render the Human and Civil
Rights guaranteed by the US Constitution, null and void, and dependent
upon a world confab of socialists, dictators, and other tyrannical
despots to control the territory and its laws, within the United
States.
I have to progress here to the idea of why the United States has any
moral right to impose its ideals upon any other sovereign state,
mostly against its own will.
My only regression here is that this nebulous, although it isn't often
recognized as such, is not a utopia, but an Orwellian horror story of
being run inconsequential of any individual or human rights for
anyone, including nation states, which is often in vogue in the
dialogue concerning universal law. At the top of the heap will be an
ultimate dictator, who makes or accepts such laws and enforces them
with tremendous use of force.
Well, let's progress a little further on... I previously wrote:
> > Take a look around almost anywhere on the planet where the US
> > has committed military forces, aggression and interference over
> > the last 55-60 years. But since you asked, one of the
> > most blatant
> > one-sided and unbalanced foreign policy blunders has been the
> > support that Israel enjoys, and all of its neighbours, except
> > perhaps Egypt and Jordan, do not.
And, you replied again:
> So, support for Israel is unbalanced?
Well. Is that, or is it not probably, our current problem? Maybe I
might want to rephrase that a certain way, but in reality, a better
question: is it particularly a great idea to take sides on an issue
between two or more states that demonstrate a favouritism for one
versus the other in international affairs? No. I'm asking you.
Particularly, when neither side has one thing at all as a threat to
the US government, its people, or our own way of life?
And you replied once again:
> That might a view that Michael Moore would support but I do
> not take such a view.
> The US will naturally take a different approach to each different
> country.
I suspect I don't really have any giant problem with Michael Moore at
all, actually I enjoy his tenacity. I'm wondering if perhaps he might
even someday walk out of the closet as a Libertarian! Who knows?
Truthfully though. The US government has taken sides, and supported
various sides, including Israel, to the detriment of other sides.
Often such choices have resulted in creating a great number of
potential and now realized enemies through one-third of the entire
planet!
Now, soak that last paragraph I just wrote in for a moment.
Now I suspect you might want to ask yourself several other questions.
Why did we do this? Was such for national security reasons? Was it
for economic gain? Certainly in my mind at least, not for either.
But in taking the side of Israel in this case over the last several
decades, was a disaster insofar as US foreign policy is concerned, and
that might explain a great deal on what took place on 9/11!
Now our current regime in office today wants to justify the US war in
Iraq and even bringing Democracy to the entire planet based upon that
assumption! This is crazy!
We've just walked a long way in the previous paragraphs on what really
justifies US relations in terms of foreign governments, and I suggest
to you that we have largely set ourselves up for 'world government'
vis-a-vis the United Nations. Both George Bush (Senior) and the Shrub
are currently pushing this 'New World Order' crap, and it has
everything to do with surrendering our own country and every other
country into compliance with laws, rules and regulations, and loss of
sovereignty to a one-world government.
The result of such an a new order will have, as its only agenda, not
to support your own human rights, national sovereignty, or any notion
of personal freedom or liberty. It will be pure tyranny and
dictatorship on a global scale. I can't imagine, in my most heartfelt
response to your comments, as a Libertarian, why I would want to buy
into any of this at all! Why should I? What are the benefits? How
is this going to promote or respect liberty throughout the entire
planet?
Perhaps, maybe to summarize this, might be to simply suggest that we
need to find a way to promote liberty within the confines of our own
civilization first, and then, set the stage and demonstrate how it
works, and then others might take notice that this REALLY works while
other systems do not! Not send hundreds of thousands of troops abroad
to export it against the will of others, but simply to represent it in
a real-time approach, demonstrating again and again, that human
Liberty always works when individuals have the right to make decisions
for themselves with cohersion, control, or threats against them.
That formula might work best between governments as well!
Warmest regards,
Frank
--
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe or unsubscribe: http://www.liberty-northwest.org/
Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Libnw mailing list
[email protected]
List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw
Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
