Re: The UN
At 12:37 09-11-2002 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: How many months would the UN last if the US decided to pull out of the UN? Not very many I wouldnt think. Well they'd immediately have to cut their budget by 20-25%, or else get that amount of increased contributions from its members. The UN will manage. Several countries, including the US, have repeatedly been way behind on paying their contributions to the UN, but a lack of funds has never caused the UN to cease functioning. Jeroen Money makes the world go round van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
At 22:54 27-10-2002 +1100, Ray Ludenia wrote: I notice that you have effectively avoided answering Dan's direct question And since when is not answering a question a bad thing on this list? Jeroen Consistency in policy van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
At 00:07 27-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Do you have a better suggestion? Yea, accept the reality of what the UN is, instead of pretending it is what it isn't. It is a forum for the countries of the world to talk, and occassionally express their collective will. The big 5 winning powers of WWII got veto powers on the Security Council, while the rest of the nations got the power to pass general resolutions in the UN. The fact The fact... what? Unfinished sentence. I think that what keeps them from controlling the UN is what keeps the European right-wing extremists from controlling Europe -- these parties have roughly the same unhealthy ideas, they would even be willing to work together, but each and every one them only wants that if *they* can be the leader. And of course, none of the parties are willing to let someone else lead them. They do not trust each other. The same applies for dictators. (Being somewhat paranoid is a great help if you want to be a dictator; do you think that someone like, say, Saddam Hussein, would trust someone like,say, Khadaffi to lead the United Dictatorships?) It wouldn't have to be that strong. All they would have to do is figure out what actions would benefit all of them and get the UN to pass that action. For example, For example... what? Unfinished sentence. The US should consider that a war against Iraq will have consequences (in the form of terrorist attacks) not only within the US, but throughout the world. If the US decides to go in alone, without support from the rest of the world, other countries would get attacked by terrorists because of a war they did not even support. Then, the question is why they didn't support it. Well, the usual reason for not supporting an idea is the belief that said idea is a *bad* idea... Considering the fact that N. Korea has surprised the US by admitting a nuclear weapons programs that may very well already have produced bombs, and considering the fact that the US is still very vulnerable to a nuclear device inside a shipping container, it seems reasonable to assume that there is a very good chance that Hussein is developing WMD. That is the whole problem: it is an *assumption*. I think that before you go to war (and drag the rest of the world with you), you should have a hell of a lot more than assumptions, suspicions and reasonable doubt. Further, given Iraq's history of playing cat and mouse, isn't it reasonable to have strict rules that will ensure that an inspection can be thorough? I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that the US wants military action to be the first option, not the last option. What besides talk about it some more will the international community support. In Realpolitic terms, it makes sense for other countries to wait and see if the US loses 100k or 1m people before taking any risk on their own. That would assume that Saddam Hussein will use a WMD against the US. I do not think he will; I think he will use it to drag as many people with him when he is brought down, and in that case Israel will be a much more likely target. If NY gets hit by an A-bomb instead of a Instead of a... what? Unfinished sentence. Considering the fact that your country kept its representative government only because the US was willing to put NY and Washington on the line to protect it, Huh? That requires some explanation. That was well explained by Steve Sloan. It was clear from the firs Berlin Crisis that the USSR had its eye on European expansion...at least the Finlandization of Europe at a minimum. America's promise was appreciated, but AFAIK the promise did not come with a clause that we would have to support the US everytime they want to wage war. Jeroen Make love, not war van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
J. van Baardwijk wrote: At 00:07 27-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Further, given Iraq's history of playing cat and mouse, isn't it reasonable to have strict rules that will ensure that an inspection can be thorough? I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that the US wants military action to be the first option, not the last option. I have seen no suggestions or discussions about what other options should be tried. *If* one thinks that rigorous inspections should occur, how are they to be enforced? Trade sanctions have been ineffective. I would like to hear some ideas on what else should be done. (Question open to anyone! I genuinely want to know.) What besides talk about it some more will the international community support. In Realpolitic terms, it makes sense for other countries to wait and see if the US loses 100k or 1m people before taking any risk on their own. That would assume that Saddam Hussein will use a WMD against the US. I do not think he will; I think he will use it to drag as many people with him when he is brought down, and in that case Israel will be a much more likely target. And this would be better how?? I notice that you have effectively avoided answering Dan's direct question: What besides talk about it some more will the international community support. (And please don't argue that it technically was not a question because he did not use correct punctuation.) Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
At 00:07 27-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Now *that* is reprehensible -- the idea that the Dutch would deliberately let the Bosnians in Srebrenica be deported (the women and children) or killed (the men). Yes, that is represensible. But, le But... what? Unfinished sentence. Why did the Dutch troops not stop them? Well, they could not do that. That is uncertain, because it wasn't tried. Given that Dutchbat had everything against them, I think it is extremely unlikely they could have stopped the Serbs. They were outnumbered, insufficiently trained, had the strategically bad position of being in a valley, and had hopelessly insufficient weapons -- the Serbs had more and heavier weapons than Dutchbat. Quite frankly, if they had engaged the Serbs, I think very few Dutch troops would have gotten out alive. If they had told the Serbs that they would have to go through them to get to the civilians they were protecting there is at least a chance that the Serbs would not have risked it. Given that they had all the advantages (troops, number of weapons, firepower, strategic positions), I doubt the Serbs would have been very impressed. Given their ruthlessness, they would probably have blasted their way right through the defense within a few hours. Especially, if the threat and the stand were publicized immediately worldwide, and the government of Serbia were told that the full force of NATO was behind the Dutch. Knowing US psychology, it would have been next to impossible for Clinton to not answer a call to support the brave, outgunned, outnumbered Dutch troops who were standing willing to give their lives to protect those whom they promised protection. Support would have been very difficult. To reach Srebrenica by land, troops would have to travel from one side of Serbian territory to the other side. That would take a long time, and could easily be delayed by the Serbs. Air support was not that easy too, because Srebrenica was the location furthest away from wherever air support was supposed to come from (which is one of the reasons why no other country wanted to send its troops there). The heaviest vehicle they had were light armoured personnel carriers, the heaviest weapon they had were .50 calibre machine guns. That kind of equipment is no match for Serbian tanks. It also did not help that the troops were relatively small in number and had not been trained well enough for the mission. All of which is the responsibility of the Netherlands. True, but you hardly blame the troops for being sent into a warzone without enough training and without the needed weaponry. Besides, the purpose of the mission was not fight the Serbs; the purpose was deterrence by presence -- the message was that if the Serbs would attack anyone, the UN would intervene. The Serbs were not impressed... They could have done what UN troops are supposed to do: form a line that cannot be crossed without consequences. To form such a line, you need something to form that line with. When you have ample troops and tanks at your disposal, a line that consists of a handful of soldiers and a .50 calibre machine gun does not at all look impressive. At best, it could delay the enemy's advance by a few hours. They could have told the government of their position, and the government And the government... what? Unfinished sentence. But, at least now you have the chance to read the entire NIOD report on it, free of charge. The full text (in English) is available at http://194.134.65.21/srebrenica/. One hell of a read, though, considering that the printed version is IIRC some 3,000 pages... That sounds like a bit. Nothing you've written contradicts the basis for my understanding. If you think that I have gotten some facts wrong that the report can point out, perhaps you can tell me about where to look in those 3000 pages...assuming you've read the Dutch version. Yes, you cannot tell me exactly where, but we should be able to narrow it down. I have not read the Dutch (or English) version yet. I do not have the time for it, and the Defense Dept. has not provided its personnel with free copies either (although we do get a discount for it). Jeroen Make love, not war van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 5:19 AM Subject: Re: The UN At 00:07 27-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Do you have a better suggestion? Yea, accept the reality of what the UN is, instead of pretending it is what it isn't. It is a forum for the countries of the world to talk, and occassionally express their collective will. The big 5 winning powers of WWII got veto powers on the Security Council, while the rest of the nations got the power to pass general resolutions in the UN. The fact The fact... what? Unfinished sentence. Sorry, I shouldn't post long complicated posts late at night. The fact the UN was founded on the realities of post-WWII politics should not be lost. There would be no way that the world powers would allow the small countries of the world to dictate to them. Especially in '46, when GB had about 40 votes or so in the UN General Assembly. It wouldn't have to be that strong. All they would have to do is figure out what actions would benefit all of them and get the UN to pass that action. For example, For example... what? Unfinished sentence. For example, if the UN was a real government, they could impose a tax on the rich democratic to support their regiem. Or, they could write international law requiring that their regiems be defended by the combined armies of the world declaring anyone who revolted against them would be stopped by all means necessary. There are plenty of things that would benefit most dictatorships that would be passed in a UN, if the rules allowed it. The US should consider that a war against Iraq will have consequences (in the form of terrorist attacks) not only within the US, but throughout the world. If the US decides to go in alone, without support from the rest of the world, other countries would get attacked by terrorists because of a war they did not even support. Then, the question is why they didn't support it. Well, the usual reason for not supporting an idea is the belief that said idea is a *bad* idea... Why is it a bad idea? I Considering the fact that N. Korea has surprised the US by admitting a nuclear weapons programs that may very well already have produced bombs, and considering the fact that the US is still very vulnerable to a nuclear device inside a shipping container, it seems reasonable to assume that there is a very good chance that Hussein is developing WMD. That is the whole problem: it is an *assumption*. I think that before you go to war (and drag the rest of the world with you), you should have a hell of a lot more than assumptions, suspicions and reasonable doubt. The only way to know for sure is if 1) Hussein publically tests a nuclear weapon 2) It is used on a population center. Further, given Iraq's history of playing cat and mouse, isn't it reasonable to have strict rules that will ensure that an inspection can be thorough? I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that the US wants military action to be the first option, not the last option. No, the US has publically stated that they were willing to have inspections first. When are you willing to have it as an option? Are you willing to support a resolution that says We inspect thoroughly, and if we find no WMD, then you are off the hook. If we find them, you destroy them or else we will do whatever is needed to destroy them, including removing you from power. If you interfere with the inspections, then we will use force to remove you. My read of France's and Russia's position is that they think this is too strong. What besides talk about it some more will the international community support. In Realpolitic terms, it makes sense for other countries to wait and see if the US loses 100k or 1m people before taking any risk on their own. That would assume that Saddam Hussein will use a WMD against the US. I do not think he will; I think he will use it to drag as many people with him when he is brought down, and in that case Israel will be a much more likely target. Fair enough. So, Israel supports the US's action. The logical conclusion is that they are happy to see it resolved now, before his ability to kill people increases. Better to lose 10,000 that 1,000,000. If NY gets hit by an A-bomb instead of a Instead of a... what? Unfinished sentence. instead of a plane, I suppose we'll get the Netherland's permission. Do you really think it is reasonable to expect the US to give up hundreds of thousands of people because other members of the UN have an inherent right to back out of their agreements? Considering the fact that your country kept its representative government only because the US was willing to put NY and Washington on the line to protect it, Huh? That requires some explanation. That was well explained by Steve Sloan. It was clear from
Re: The UN
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 5:19 AM Subject: Re: The UN I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that the US wants military action to be the first option, not the last option. What? 12 years of Saddams evasions is not enough for you? You act like this all started just a few weeks ago. The idea that there is some sort of disconnect between the Gulf War and current events is disingenuous, and I blame the UN for the popularisation of that particular meme. xponent What TheMaru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 4:30 PM Subject: Re: The UN At 16:01 22-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: The why was not adressed to that part of your statement. It was adressed to whether letting governments vote is the next best thing. Do you have a better suggestion? Yea, accept the reality of what the UN is, instead of pretending it is what it isn't. It is a forum for the countries of the world to talk, and occassionally express their collective will. The big 5 winning powers of WWII got veto powers on the Security Council, while the rest of the nations got the power to pass general resolutions in the UN. The fact Why should dictatorships be able to dictate their will to representative governments. In the UN (with the exception of the UNSC), no dictatorship can dictate their will to other governments. No, but the governments of dictatorships, when they comprise the majority, vote to ensure that resolutions favoring dictatorships pass the UN. First of all, I do not know how may of the 191 UN member countries are dictatorships, so I cannot say whether or not they would comprise a majority. Second, the fact that a certain number of countries qualify as dictatorships does not mean they all agree with each other. If they would, they would be controlling the UN completely. I think that what keeps them from controlling the UN is what keeps the European right-wing extremists from controlling Europe -- these parties have roughly the same unhealthy ideas, they would even be willing to work together, but each and every one them only wants that if *they* can be the leader. And of course, none of the parties are willing to let someone else lead them. They do not trust each other. The same applies for dictators. (Being somewhat paranoid is a great help if you want to be a dictator; do you think that someone like, say, Saddam Hussein, would trust someone like, say, Khadaffi to lead the United Dictatorships?) It wouldn't have to be that strong. All they would have to do is figure out what actions would benefit all of them and get the UN to pass that action. For example, You surely know how they stack the Human Rights commisions with representatives of dictators who commit gross violations of human rights. Actually, this is the first time I hear that. Can you point me to a website that lists the various members of the various Human Rights commisions? (This is not a I demand proof! statement -- it is a genuine question.) Here's a website: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm There was quite a bit on it last year when the US was off for the first time ever, while bastions of human rights, such as Syria, Nigeria, Cuba and China were in. You know that these folks work to make sure that nothing of substance happens. Now there are other countries who are democracies, such as China or Italy that are on it too, but it makes sense that areas dominated by dictatorships will make sure that dictatorships and forces that strongly surpress human rights have their viewpoints adaquately represented. So, its much better to do whatever terrorists will want, and hope that its the US they hit first, and you'd be spared? That's gutless. Dan, you have to read my statement complete with the paragraph that preceded it. In that paragraph, I did not write about do what the terrorists want, I wrote about the responsibility of the US with regard to the rest of the world. The US should consider that a war against Iraq will have consequences (in the form of terrorist attacks) not only within the US, but throughout the world. If the US decides to go in alone, without support from the rest of the world, other countries would get attacked by terrorists because of a war they did not even support. Then, the question is why they didn't support it. I can see arguing that the war in Iraq isn't wise. I'm not really a strong supporter of it; there have been thoughtful people who have argued that the negatives outweight the positives. But, arguing that the UN should walk away from its promises because you are afraid that terrorists will get mad if it doesn't is not a reasonable suggestion. I am not arguing that the UN should walk away from its promises; I am arguing that the US should keep in mind that if they decide to go to war on their own, other countries will still feel the consequences. Certainly, the US needs to keep that in mind. It needs to weigh the risks to others vs. the risks to its own citizens and others if it doesn't. Then the real question is how extensive are the possible consequences to the US vs. the rest of the world. Considering the fact that N. Korea has surprised the US by admitting a nuclear weapons programs that may very well already have produced bombs, and considering the fact that the US is still very vulnerable to a nuclear device
Re: The UN
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 12:07:08AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: substance happens. Now there are other countries who are democracies, such as China or Italy that are on it too, but it makes sense that areas ^ Huh? I know you didn't mean China, but I can't guess who you did mean. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 12:59:37AM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: (And I'll feel better about *my* response if I get confirmation from Erik at some point.) You are right as usual, Julia. The UN Security Council needs 9 yea's and no vetos from any of the 5 permanent members to pass. Since Dan implied the 5 permanent members would vote yes, then there were 4 more yea's required, which is what I was referring to. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The UN
At 21:05 23-10-2002 -0500, John Horn wrote: That is to say, by that rule, England should have done nothing while Hitler took over Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. England does not have borders with those countries, so when Hitler attacked them, England was not under attack. So what about mutual defense treaties? Are those wrong? No, of course not. But rushing to the aid of an invaded country with which you have a mutual defense treaty is something wildly different from attacking a country because of a suspicion that said country *might* have (or *might* be developing) weapons of mass destruction which it then *might* use against you. So far the US has failed to produce a shred of evidence about Iraq developing and/or producing WMD's. Others have already argued why Saddam Hussein is only going to use those weapons when he knows his personal end his near and has nothing to lose. Are there no situations in which a preemptive attack might be warranted? There might be, but no such situation has presented itself so far. Jeroen Make love, not war van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
Doug wrote: (...) That is to say, by that rule, England should have done nothing while Hitler took over Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. Note here that the UN _did_ vote to act against Iraq when they invaded Kuwait, a situation analogous to Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia. No! A situation analogous to Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia would be *if* the USA, France, and Iran agreed to split Iraq in three parts, Iran taking the South, Jordania the Middle, and Turkey the North. The three takings mentioned above were totally different. Austria was a fusion, as the Austrian g*vernment of that time was totally nazi. Czechoslovakia was a partition, and each neighbour took a slice. IIRC [from my history books, I'm not that old. Not yet] the czechs didn't resist [they could]. Poland was an invasion, by both Germany and USSR. And before all that was the militarization of the Sudetos (sp?), the border of Germany and France. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
- Original Message - From: Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 12:03 AM Subject: Re: The UN Dan Minette wrote: Where in the UN charter does it say that a country must gain permission before defending itself? Your suggestion, that a country should wait until its borders were crossed would fail the Chamberlin test. That is to say, by that rule, England should have done nothing while Hitler took over Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. Note here that the UN _did_ vote to act against Iraq when they invaded Kuwait, a situation analogous to Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia. It is somewhat analogous, but not fully. It did so because the UK, France, Russia, China and the US all thought it was a good idea. To first order, the Security Council does whatever these five agree upon. Yes, 5 of the 10 temporary members have to concur, but it is likely to happen if these 5 agree. In my analogy, I had Germany and Japan as two veto powers: corresponding the USSR and China being veto powers during the Cold War. It is true that the UN backed defending S. Korea, but only because the USSR made the mistake of boycotting the UN after the PRC was not given China's seat at the UN. Given that scenario, it is unlikely to impossible to conclude that they would have let the UN take action. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 01:17:21PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: the Security Council does whatever these five agree upon. Yes, 5 of the 10 temporary members have to concur, but it is likely to happen if these 5 agree. 4, I believe. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
J. van Baardwijk wrote: Considering the fact that your country kept its representative government only because the US was willing to put NY and Washington on the line to protect it, Huh? That requires some explanation. During the Cold War, the US promised to defend western Europe as if it were its own soil, which meant using its nuclear missiles on the Soviet Union if it ever attempted to invade western Europe. If we fired our missiles, then the immediate result would be Soviet nukes flying over to destroy our cities, including New York and Washington. __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages ... http://www.sloan3d.com/brinl Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
At 15:19 23-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: A country's self-defense is an internal matter, not an UN matter. However, invading an other country is an act of aggression, not self-defense. So, all wars of self defense must stop at the border? It is wrong to defeat a country that attacks? The answer is no on both questions. However, self-defense is what you do when you are attacked. Unless something happened in the last hour or so, Iraq has not yet attacked the US. All the US has right now is *suspicions* that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction. Your suggestion, that a country should wait until its borders were its borders were crossed would fail the Chamberlin test. The what? I have never heard of the Chamberlin test. It is considered a trueism that Chamberlin made a significant mistake by refusing to stop Hitler's advance into Czechoslovakia. The Chamberlin test is whether the rules set forth allow any stronger action than Chamberlin's. Ah. Thank you for the explanation. That is to say, by that rule, England should have done nothing while Hitler took over Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. England does not have borders with those countries, so when Hitler attacked them, England was not under attack. So, your argument is that England could only respond to Hitler _after_ English soil is attacked? These are different matters, Dan. Hitler did attack Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland. Iraq however has not attacked the US. Jeroen Make love, not war van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
Jeroen wrote: At 15:19 23-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: So, your argument is that England could only respond to Hitler _after_ English soil is attacked? These are different matters, Dan. Hitler did attack Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland. Iraq however has not attacked the US. In point of fact, Germany did *not* attack Austria. The Austrians welcomed the Germans with open arms. Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Silence. I am watching television. - Spider Jerusalem ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
Erik Reuter wrote: On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 01:17:21PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: the Security Council does whatever these five agree upon. Yes, 5 of the 10 temporary members have to concur, but it is likely to happen if these 5 agree. 4, I believe. 5: U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
Doug wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 01:17:21PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: the Security Council does whatever these five agree upon. Yes, 5 of the 10 temporary members have to concur, but it is likely to happen if these 5 agree. 4, I believe. 5: U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China I thought the 4 was the number of the temporary members that had to concur; if it's 9 out of 15 (which I seem to remember someone quoting), then you'd need to have 4 of the 10 temporary members agree to whatever the 5 you listed agree on. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
Julia Thompson wrote: Doug wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 01:17:21PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: the Security Council does whatever these five agree upon. Yes, 5 of the 10 temporary members have to concur, but it is likely to happen if these 5 agree. 4, I believe. 5: U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China I thought the 4 was the number of the temporary members that had to concur; if it's 9 out of 15 (which I seem to remember someone quoting), then you'd need to have 4 of the 10 temporary members agree to whatever the 5 you listed agree on. Oh, OK, I misunderstood. 8^P Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
Doug wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Doug wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 01:17:21PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: the Security Council does whatever these five agree upon. Yes, 5 of the 10 temporary members have to concur, but it is likely to happen if these 5 agree. 4, I believe. 5: U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China I thought the 4 was the number of the temporary members that had to concur; if it's 9 out of 15 (which I seem to remember someone quoting), then you'd need to have 4 of the 10 temporary members agree to whatever the 5 you listed agree on. Oh, OK, I misunderstood. 8^P What you were responding to was perhaps ambiguous, and I wouldn't have caught it if I hadn't been paying attention earlier in the discussion. (And I'll feel better about *my* response if I get confirmation from Erik at some point.) And your response was informational. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
At 16:24 22-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Where in the UN charter does it say that a country must gain permission before defending itself? A country's self-defense is an internal matter, not an UN matter. However, invading an other country is an act of aggression, not self-defense. Your suggestion, that a country should wait until its borders were its borders were crossed would fail the Chamberlin test. The what? I have never heard of the Chamberlin test. That is to say, by that rule, England should have done nothing while Hitler took over Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. England does not have borders with those countries, so when Hitler attacked them, England was not under attack. Jeroen Make love, not war van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 2:35 PM Subject: Re: The UN At 16:24 22-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Where in the UN charter does it say that a country must gain permission before defending itself? A country's self-defense is an internal matter, not an UN matter. However, invading an other country is an act of aggression, not self-defense. So, all wars of self defense must stop at the border? It is wrong to defeat a country that attacks? Further, if one decides to sue for peace short of uncoditional surrender, it is wrong to enforce the terms of the treaty? Your suggestion, that a country should wait until its borders were its borders were crossed would fail the Chamberlin test. The what? I have never heard of the Chamberlin test. It is considered a trueism that Chamberlin made a significant mistake by refusing to stop Hitler's advance into Czechoslovakia. The Chamberlin test is whether the rules set forth allow any stronger action than Chamberlin's. That is to say, by that rule, England should have done nothing while Hitler took over Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. England does not have borders with those countries, so when Hitler attacked them, England was not under attack. So, your argument is that England could only respond to Hitler _after_ English soil is attacked? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The UN
From: J. van Baardwijk [mailto:j.vanbaardwijk;chello.nl] That is to say, by that rule, England should have done nothing while Hitler took over Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. England does not have borders with those countries, so when Hitler attacked them, England was not under attack. So what about mutual defense treaties? Are those wrong? Was the US wrong all those years to say that we would defend Europe (including your particular home land) from the USSR? Are there no situations in which a preemptive attack might be warranted? - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
Dan Minette wrote: Where in the UN charter does it say that a country must gain permission before defending itself? Your suggestion, that a country should wait until its borders were crossed would fail the Chamberlin test. That is to say, by that rule, England should have done nothing while Hitler took over Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. Note here that the UN _did_ vote to act against Iraq when they invaded Kuwait, a situation analogous to Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
At 17:59 21-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Do you believe that the principle of one country, one vote is a democratic principle? Yes. Of course, ideally any UN decision would be made by letting every citizen of every member country vote on the issue (using the one man, one vote principle). However, given that this is not doable, the principle of one country, one vote is the best alternative. Why? Why not? To get a picture of the opinions of people around the world, the most accurate results would come from asking every citizen of every member country for his/her opinion. Do you have a better way to obtain that level of accuracy? IIRC, the majority of countries in the UN are still not representative governments. I know 20 years ago that was a certainty. I do not know if that is still the case, and I really do not have the time to do a background check on all 191 member countries. Why should dictatorships be able to dictate their will to representative governments. In the UN (with the exception of the UNSC), no dictatorship can dictate their will to other governments. It can happen in the UNSC, through (ab)use of veto power, but it is not only the dictatorships there who have (ab)used their veto power to dictate their will to the internationals community. The US, the self-proclaimed defender of democracy, has done the exact same thing. No. By rejecting the authority of the UN, the US is choosing a form of dictatorship (the US and only the US decides) over what at least to a certain extent is a democracy. No, it is choosing the freedom of a soverign state to act as it deems best. If the consequences of acting as it deems best would only affect the US, then I would probably not have a problem with it. However, going to war against Iraq is an act that has an impact not only on the US, but on the rest of the world as well, and therefore such a decision requires the majority support of the international community. No majority support, no war. When the US launches a war against Iraq, the fundamentalists in the Middle East (and elsewhere) will see this as yet another act of aggression by the Evil US, and will no doubt strike back with terrorist attacks. When that happens, US cities will not the be the only cities in the world where bombs will start going off. And quite frankly, I do not really like the idea of being blown up in The Netherlands because a warmonger in the White House wants to enforce his will on the rest of the world. Jeroen KABOOM! van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 4:01 PM Subject: Re: The UN Where in the UN charter does it say that a country Needed to finish the thought, sorry.. Where in the UN charter does it say that a country must gain permission before defending itself? Your suggestion, that a country should wait until its borders were crossed would fail the Chamberlin test. That is to say, by that rule, England should have done nothing while Hitler took over Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. I'm more than willing to agree that the problem is hard, but that's not the solution. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Democracy (was Re: The UN (Hey, JDG!))
At 18:06 21-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Out of curiosity, why do you keep on twisting meanings, even when you don't have to? I do not see this as twisting meanings. Apparently I use a different definition of democracy than you do. But then, the definition the majority decides is the everyday definition that gets taught in schools here (at least, in my days it was; I cannot tell if it has been changed since then). I suppose that US schools teach representative of the people as the everyday definition. So, if you think my definition is wrong, blame the Dutch educational system. :-) The real question, of course, is the majority of whom? The majority of the people who participate in the voting, of course. Was the USSR a democracy by the Dutch meaning of the word, because the majority of the Politburo dediced? The USSR was certainly not considered a democracy. However, technically speaking the Politburo itself could be considered democratic if it made decisions by majority vote. Jeroen Voting is so much easier with Iraqi democracy van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
In a message dated 10/22/2002 2:18:53 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Your suggestion, that a country should wait until its borders were crossed would fail the Chamberlin test. I have a different Chanberlin test. ;-) I tell someone, To change history you should go back in time and kill Chamberlin. If they think Hitler and a piece of paper, they lose. If they think American Civil War, they win. And just in case before someone emails it... If they think basketball player I go Sat Whaaa? No way to actually prove which answer is correct. It may only sort out who watches PBS. William Taylor ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
--- J. van Baardwijk wrote: snip When the US launches a war against Iraq, the fundamentalists in the Middle East (and elsewhere) will see this as yet another act of aggression by the Evil US, and will no doubt strike back with terrorist attacks. When that happens, US cities will not the be the only cities in the world where bombs will start going off. I think that a US-only war on Iraq will not stay within the current borders of that country. Saddam, his back to the wall, will launch against Israel, and when Sharon responds, other Arab states will feel compelled to do something. That is a major reason for working toward a UN-sanctioned action (for which of course the US will carry the lion's share), IMO. Robert Seeberger wrote: How many months would the UN last if the US decided to pull out of the UN? Not very many I wouldnt think. [Jeroen wrote] I think you would be surprised to see how long it would last. I think the US often overestimates it importance to the world. Hmm, well I think it might last a while, but how seriously would anyone take it? I'm not trying to be an arrogant Yang here, but I'm not sure how one could overestimate the impact of the US on the entire world: economically, culturally, militarily. Pretty bloody big footprint (irony intended)... Debbi GSV Leviathan __ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
At 21:27 21-10-2002 -0400, John Giorgis wrote: I have always been opposed to veto power for *any* country because it gets in the way of the democratic process, so the answers to the above questions are no and no. So, in other words, the UNSC is by no means a paragon of the democratic principle. QED: Throwing out the UNSC is not throwing out democratic principle. Wrong. While I agree that the UNSC is not a paragon of democracy, it still resembles, to a certain extend, democracy. Despite its flaws, it is still a better approach then letting one country rampage around the globe, forcing its will upon the rest of the world. But of course, the US is in no position to use the argument of abuse of veto power as a reason to ignore the UNSC -- the US has done the exact same thing. Yes. Of course, ideally any UN decision would be made by letting every citizen of every member country vote on the issue (using the one man, one vote principle). However, given that this is not doable, the principle of one country, one vote is the best alternative. This is, of course, completely consistent with your views on the electoral college. These are two different things. It is technically impossible for the UN to make decisions by letting every citizen of every country vote using the one man, one vote system. However, given the significant smaller scale, an US election *can* be done by letting every citizen vote using the one man, one vote system (thus making the electoral college obsolete). Such a system requires advanced technology; a large part of the world does not have that technology, the US does. No. By rejecting the authority of the UN, the US is choosing a form of dictatorship (the US and only the US decides) over what at least to a certain extent is a democracy. First off, any institution with veto powers is democracy by only the crudest of measures. Indeed, since all decision in the US Congress are taken by a republic through democratic principles, I would argue that the US Congress is far more democratic than an institution that gives out veto powers, Was the US not one of the countries that decided that some members of the UNSC should have veto power? How can a country claim to uphold democratic principles, and simultaneously support something that gets in the way of democracy? let alone a veto power to the Butchers of Beijing. Cut the namecalling and just refer to a country by using its name. Of the permanent members of the UNSC, the dictatorial countries are not the *only* ones with blood on their hands. Besides, the US has consulted with its allies, many of whom, such as UK, Australia, Italy, and Spain have supported the US in this.Hardly dictatorship. Not exactly majority rule either. Neverminding the 536 elected representatives that participated in this decision of the US. Irrelevant. In the UNSC, the vote of the US counts as *one* vote, not as 536 votes. The voting process in US Congress is an internal matter, not an UN matter. Which, I might add is roughly 526 more elected representatives than participate in UNSC decisions. Irrelevant. In the UNSC, the vote of the US counts as *one* vote, not as 536 votes. The voting process in US Congress is an internal matter, not an UN matter. Jeroen Voting is so much easier with Iraqi democracy van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
I'm sending this again because it didn't show up after ~10 minutes; if there's a glitch and 2 copies go through, I apologise in advance.-Deb --- J. van Baardwijk wrote: snip When the US launches a war against Iraq, the fundamentalists in the Middle East (and elsewhere) will see this as yet another act of aggression by the Evil US, and will no doubt strike back with terrorist attacks. When that happens, US cities will not the be the only cities in the world where bombs will start going off. I think that a US-only war on Iraq will not stay within the current borders of that country. Saddam, his back to the wall, will launch against Israel, and when Sharon responds, other Arab states will feel compelled to do something. That is a major reason for working toward a UN-sanctioned action (for which of course the US will carry the lion's share), IMO. Robert Seeberger wrote: How many months would the UN last if the US decided to pull out of the UN? Not very many I wouldnt think. [Jeroen wrote] I think you would be surprised to see how long it would last. I think the US often overestimates it importance to the world. Hmm, well I think it might last a while, but how seriously would anyone take it? I'm not trying to be an arrogant Yang here, but I'm not sure how one could overestimate the impact of the US on the entire world: economically, culturally, militarily. Pretty bloody big footprint (irony intended)... Debbi GSV Leviathan __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos More http://faith.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Democracy (was Re: The UN (Hey, JDG!))
At 21:31 21-10-2002 -0400, John Giorgis wrote: Actually, the majority does not decide in the UNSC. First, decisions require a minimum of 9 out of 15 members. Secondly, many decisions with the support of 14-1 are not taken by the UNSC. Worse yet, several decisions have been made by just one country -- that happened every time a country with veto power decided to abuse that power to protect its friends and its own interests. But then, if you use the literal meaning, every democratic country in the world could be considered not a democracy. After all, when a government wants a vote on something, it does not go and ask every single citizen for his/her opinion; it asks the chosen representatives of those citizens for their opinion. QED: The US is not abandoning democratic principles if it does not receive the support of the UN, since the US has never operated solely on democratic principles, it operates on republican principles. Those republican principles only apply within the US. The UN has not adopted those principles but has adopted the democratic principle of one country, one vote. As a member country, the US is bound by that. How the US organises its internal democratic process is irrelevant. Therefore, if the US goes against the will of the UN, it is abandoning democratic principles -- the democratic principles of an organisation of which it is a (founding!) member. Jeroen Voting is so much easier with Iraqi democracy van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jeroen Re: the UN
At 21:33 21-10-2002 -0400, John Giorgis wrote: Haven't you previously argued that I *never* understand what you mean? Maybe, maybe not. Can you quote a post in which I said that? Because I really do not have the time to go through some 3,300 posts to see whether or not I said that. Jeroen Other priorities van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
- Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 5:37 PM Subject: Re: The UN I'm sending this again because it didn't show up after ~10 minutes; if there's a glitch and 2 copies go through, I apologise in advance.-Deb Well and good, but there's a problem with symmetry. There is no way for us to accept your apology in advance, is there? Unless, of course, some of those weird interpretations of QM are right. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
--- Dan Minette wrote: [I wrote] I'm sending this again because it didn't show up after ~10 minutes; if there's a glitch and 2 copies go through, I apologise in advance.-Deb Well and good, but there's a problem with symmetry. There is no way for us to accept your apology in advance, is there? Unless, of course, some of those weird interpretations of QM are right. Come on, Dan, it's gremlins in the system! :D I _did_ get this, and the 'test' message I also sent, so weird QMness or gremlins must be responsible. Thanks (post-deed) :) Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN (Hey, JDG!)
At 16:53 20-10-2002 -0400, John Giorgis wrote: It may not be perfect, but it is the best we have. It is certainly better than having one country throwing its cherished principles of democracy overboard and then unilaterally decide to drag the Middle East into another war. Which principle of democracy are you referring to? Typo. Where it says principles it should say principle. BTW, notice what I am doing here? I am answering a question, I am answering it the first time it is asked, and I am giving a real reply rather than trying to evade the question. You really should adopt that practice too; it will give your credibility and reputation that much-needed boost. And who knows, maybe someday you will even become a respected person. Jeroen Answering questions -- unlike someone else here van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN (Hey, JDG!)
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 3:16 PM Subject: Re: The UN (Hey, JDG!) At 16:53 20-10-2002 -0400, John Giorgis wrote: It may not be perfect, but it is the best we have. It is certainly better than having one country throwing its cherished principles of democracy overboard and then unilaterally decide to drag the Middle East into another war. Which principle of democracy are you referring to? Typo. Where it says principles it should say principle. BTW, notice what I am doing here? I am answering a question, I am answering it the first time it is asked, and I am giving a real reply rather than trying to evade the question. You really should adopt that practice too; it will give your credibility and reputation that much-needed boost. And who knows, maybe someday you will even become a respected person. Well, I'll go in where wiser folks fear to tread. The UN is not a democracy. It is a place where voting occurs, but voting does not make something a democracy. For example, if the Politburo decided something by a 10-4 vote, that didn't make it a democratic vote. The UN is an organization of nations; it is not a body that represents the people of the world. To give an example of the flaws of relying on the UN, if the League of Nations were to be constituted as the UN was during the Cold War, then Germany and Japan would each have a veto. Thus, the League of Nations would have not sanctioned any actions to stop Japan or Germany without the approval of Japan and Germany. A reasonable question would be, then, would Britain have been wrong in stopping Hitler? Was the proper course for Britain to stand by when Europe was overtaken and only act once Hitler started bombing the UK? BTW, I saw the meaning of JDG's answer immediately. I'm guessing that you saw it too, but are having too much fun gigging him to respond. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: the UN
At 13:33 21-10-2002 -0700, John Giorgis wrote: It may not be perfect, but it is the best we have. It is certainly better than having one country throwing its cherished principles of democracy overboard and then unilaterally decide to drag the Middle East into another war. Which principle of democracy are you referring to? Typo. Where it says principles it should say principle. *** What principle is that? Come on now! While most of the world gives credibility to the UN, you claim as Absolute Truth that the UN is a discredited body. If you are so intelligent and so intellectually superior to the rest of the world that you can make such a statement of Absolute Truth (thus implying that hundreds of thousands of politicians and diplomats worldwide are all wrong), surely you should have no problem whatsoever figuring out what I mean! Jeroen Food for thought van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
- Original Message - From: J.D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 4:20 PM Subject: Re: The UN Jeroen wrote: Come on now! While most of the world gives credibility to the UN, you claim as Absolute Truth that the UN is a discredited body. If you are so intelligent and so intellectually superior to the rest of the world that you can make such a statement of Absolute Truth (thus implying that hundreds of thousands of politicians and diplomats worldwide are all wrong), surely you should have no problem whatsoever figuring out what I mean! * O.k., let's try the parphrase trick. John, let me ask you a question of clarification. I see the UN as a useful, but flawed institution. It is far better to have a world with a flawed UN than no UN. Yet, I agree that one cannot rely on the UN to always do what is necessary. Is that consistant with your understanding of discredited? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN (Hey, JDG!)
At 15:30 21-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: It may not be perfect, but it is the best we have. It is certainly better than having one country throwing its cherished principles of democracy overboard and then unilaterally decide to drag the Middle East into another war. Which principle of democracy are you referring to? Typo. Where it says principles it should say principle. snip Well, I'll go in where wiser folks fear to tread. The UN is not a democracy. It is a place where voting occurs, but voting does not make something a democracy. snip BTW, I saw the meaning of JDG's answer immediately. You did, however, completely miss the meaning of what I was saying. You mention the UN, but the UN has nothing to do with it. The post is about the US and democracy. I could of course explain the meaning of my writings right now. However, I have already challenged Giorgis to use his (ahem) high level of intelligence and his intellectual superiority over the rest of the world (ahem) to come up with an explanation of what I meant. I am going to wait for a while, to see what he comes up with (assuming he *does* come up with an explanation). Jeroen That might be a while van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Democracy (was Re: The UN (Hey, JDG!))
At 15:30 21-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: It may not be perfect, but it is the best we have. It is certainly better than having one country throwing its cherished principles of democracy overboard and then unilaterally decide to drag the Middle East into another war. Which principle of democracy are you referring to? Typo. Where it says principles it should say principle. snip Well, I'll go in where wiser folks fear to tread. The UN is not a democracy. It is a place where voting occurs, but voting does not make something a democracy. That depends on how you define democracy. When you use its literal meaning (the people decide), then the UN is indeed not a democracy. When you use the word in the way it is more commonly used, however (the majority decides), then the UN *is* a democracy. But then, if you use the literal meaning, every democratic country in the world could be considered not a democracy. After all, when a government wants a vote on something, it does not go and ask every single citizen for his/her opinion; it asks the chosen representatives of those citizens for their opinion. Jeroen Voting is so much easier with Iraqi democracy van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Democracy (was Re: The UN (Hey, JDG!))
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 4:52 PM Subject: Democracy (was Re: The UN (Hey, JDG!)) At 15:30 21-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: It may not be perfect, but it is the best we have. It is certainly better than having one country throwing its cherished principles of democracy overboard and then unilaterally decide to drag the Middle East into another war. Which principle of democracy are you referring to? Typo. Where it says principles it should say principle. snip Well, I'll go in where wiser folks fear to tread. The UN is not a democracy. It is a place where voting occurs, but voting does not make something a democracy. That depends on how you define democracy. When you use its literal meaning (the people decide), then the UN is indeed not a democracy. When you use the word in the way it is more commonly used, however (the majority decides), then the UN *is* a democracy. Actually, the common loose usage of democracy is representative of the people. Thus, countries with representative governments with constitutions are referred to as democracies, while countries that are governed by small groups of people, like the Politburo, are not. But, I'm sure you know that. Out of curiosity, why do you keep on twisting meanings, even when you don't have to? Why is it more fun to turn every discussion into a matter of personal anamosity and arguements over minutia than over issues? In the general sense of the world, the UN is not a democracy. It is a forum for countires to work together. It is deeply flawed, but better than nothing. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Democracy (was Re: The UN (Hey, JDG!))
At 17:21 21-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Jeroen Have it on my desk by 08:00 tomorrow van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com Well, I'll go in where wiser folks fear to tread. The UN is not a democracy. It is a place where voting occurs, but voting does not make something a democracy. That depends on how you define democracy. When you use its literal meaning (the people decide), then the UN is indeed not a democracy. When you use the word in the way it is more commonly used, however (the majority decides), then the UN *is* a democracy. Actually, the common loose usage of democracy is representative of the people. Thus, countries with representative governments with constitutions are referred to as democracies, while countries that are governed by small groups of people, like the Politburo, are not. But, I'm sure you know that. Out of curiosity, why do you keep on twisting meanings, even when you don't have to? I do not see this as twisting meanings. Apparently I use a different definition of democracy than you do. But then, the definition the majority decides is the everyday definition that gets taught in schools here (at least, in my days it was; I cannot tell if it has been changed since then). I suppose that US schools teach representative of the people as the everyday definition. So, if you think my definition is wrong, blame the Dutch educational system. :-) Jeroen Different places, different definitions van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Democracy (was Re: The UN (Hey, JDG!))
Out of curiosity, why do you keep on twisting meanings, even when you don't have to? I do not see this as twisting meanings. Apparently I use a different definition of democracy than you do. But then, the definition the majority decides is the everyday definition that gets taught in schools here (at least, in my days it was; I cannot tell if it has been changed since then). I suppose that US schools teach representative of the people as the everyday definition. So, if you think my definition is wrong, blame the Dutch educational system. :-) The real question, of course, is the majority of whom? Was the USSR a democracy by the Dutch meaning of the word, because the majority of the Politburo decided? If so, the UN is a democracy, just like the Politburo was. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
- Original Message - From: Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 5:54 PM Subject: RE: The UN Jeroen wrote: Come on now! While most of the world gives credibility to the UN, you claim as Absolute Truth that the UN is a discredited body. Unfortunately, the UN has no real teeth. They make resolutions and fail to follow-up when the resolution is ignored. The original weapons inspections are a perfect example. My personal viewpoint on the UN is that they are similar to a parent that makes constant empty unenforced threats to make their children behave and then are amazed when the children rebel and get away with it. This is not to say that the UN doesn't do good things in the world, but when the UN makes a resolution and doesn't enforce it, why should they be taken seriously? What motivates rogue countries to comply when they know with almost no doubt that the UN will not do ANYTHING to force them to comply? How many months would the UN last if the US decided to pull out of the UN? Not very many I wouldnt think. xponent UN Delend.Aw The Heck With It Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
Jeroen wrote: Come on now! While most of the world gives credibility to the UN, you claim as Absolute Truth that the UN is a discredited body. Unfortunately, the UN has no real teeth. They make resolutions and fail to follow-up when the resolution is ignored. The original weapons inspections are a perfect example. My personal viewpoint on the UN is that they are similar to a parent that makes constant empty unenforced threats to make their children behave and then are amazed when the children rebel and get away with it. This is not to say that the UN doesn't do good things in the world, but when the UN makes a resolution and doesn't enforce it, why should they be taken seriously? What motivates rogue countries to comply when they know with almost no doubt that the UN will not do ANYTHING to force them to comply? How many months would the UN last if the US decided to pull out of the UN? Not very many I wouldnt think. rob agree Weren't the clamoring for a new building a few months ago? Fine, let them build it in Bogota, Paris, Johannesburg, or Riyadh. Or they build it on the site of the world trade towers and they HAVE TO walk past the victims memorial everyday. No side doors, no elevators from a sub basement. Kevin T. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Democracy (was Re: The UN (Hey, JDG!))
At 11:52 PM 10/21/2002 +0200 J. van Baardwijk wrote: That depends on how you define democracy. When you use its literal meaning (the people decide), then the UN is indeed not a democracy. When you use the word in the way it is more commonly used, however (the majority decides), then the UN *is* a democracy. Actually, the majority does not decide in the UNSC. First, decisions require a minimum of 9 out of 15 members. Secondly, many decisions with the support of 14-1 are not taken by the UNSC. But then, if you use the literal meaning, every democratic country in the world could be considered not a democracy. After all, when a government wants a vote on something, it does not go and ask every single citizen for his/her opinion; it asks the chosen representatives of those citizens for their opinion. QED: The US is not abandoning democratic principles if it does not receive the support of the UN, since the US has never operated solely on democratic principles, it operates on republican principles. One core republican principle is that only sub-entites which are either republican or democratic can participate in decision of the larger whole. For example, States must have a republican form of government in order to join the United States.Therfore, if the USA were to stick t its core principles on this issue, it would insist that the decision on Iraq be referred to an international organization that only admits republican or democratic member nations. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. -US National Security Policy, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Jeroen Re: the UN
At 11:08 PM 10/21/2002 +0200 J. van Baardwijk wrote: Surely you should have no problem whatsoever figuring out what I mean! Haven't you previously argued that I *never* understand what you mean? Or more accurately, do you have any evidence that I ever understand what you mean? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages. -US National Security Policy, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
