View Full Version : What Good Is The Un
"Excellencies, we have come to a fork in the road. This may be a moment no less decisive than 1945 itself, when the United Nations was founded."
So said UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to the General Assembly in September.
Kofi Annan is appointing a panel to examine the UN's role
One could say cynically that there has never been a time when the UN has not been at a fork in the road. It was so in 1950 when North Korea invaded the South and the United States immediately called on the Security Council to act. The Council did act, but only because Russia was boycotting it at the time in a row over the representation of China, one of the most unwise diplomatic moves ever. The Russians made sure they were never absent again. Throughout the Cold War, the Security Council became a cockpit for confrontation, never more so than in the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 when US Ambassador Adlai Stevenson produced photographs of Soviet missiles in Cuba.
In the new world disorder produced by the end of the Cold War, the UN failed to act decisively in a number of crises. In Bosnia, blue helmeted soldiers were reduced to guard duties and the then Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali lectured the besieged people of Sarajevo that there were worse places in the world. In the crisis over Kosovo, Russian opposition prevented any UN action and so it was Nato which waged war against Serbia. And so on.
There have been successes. Cambodia and East Timor were put back together under UN leadership. Liberia is now being helped. There was also the war to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991.
There was little unity over the war in Iraq
However that unity over Iraq has now degenerated into the present standoff and to Kofi Annan's warning.
His point can be summed up in one word - unilateralism. "According to this argument," he said in the UN speech, "states are not obliged to wait until there is agreement in the Security Council. Instead they reserve the right to act unilaterally, or in ad hoc coalitions. This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years."
He did not mention the United States. He did not have to. And what he meant was clear enough. If the United States started acting unilaterally, then others would as well and we would be back to square one.
It is important to note, however, that he did not actually attack the principle of pre-emption, one of the cornerstones of the Bush doctrine.
He said: "It is not enough to denounce unilateralism, unless we also face up squarely to the concerns that make some states feel uniquely vulnerable, since it is those concerns that drive them to take unilateral action. We must show that those concerns can, and will, be addressed effectively through collective action."
That is an important distinction and it defines the choice which he thinks lies ahead - the fork in the road. Either the UN collectively addresses the threats (whether from international terrorism, weapons of mass destruction or whatever) or individual countries will take action themselves.
Indeed, the former British UN ambassador Lord Hannay points out that the UN Charter already allows for pre-emptive action. Article 39 of Chapter VII ( the enforcement chapter of the charter) says: "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken..."
"He was not saying that pre-emption is wrong but that unilateralism is a recipe for anarchy. And he was telling others to grow up and look around them. said Lord Hannay. "Weapons of mass destruction cannot be ignored or they could fall into the hands of some pretty odd people. This desperate desire to refight the war over Iraq will not help," he said. "The secretary general is right to say that there is a crisis. But people are so submerged by anger, rage and anti-Americanism that they cannot let go."
Lord Hannay believes that the key to the future is a "better understanding between the permanent five members of the Council" - the US, Russia, China, UK and France. "Enlarging the Security Council is a good idea, but would it change much? No."
Another British UN watcher, Sir Adam Roberts, professor of International Relations at Balliol College, Oxford, agrees that the problems created by Iraq would not be solved simply by enlarging the Council.
It is desirable for the Security Council to enlarge to respond to the huge changes in the world but it will be harder for it to take decisions "It is questionable to link the disaster over Iraq to the issues of reform," he says. "It is a problem of the permanent five, not of reform. They have to address the security issues and there are signs that the United States is moving. It has realised that it cannot manage Iraq on its own."
He said: "It is desirable for the Security Council to enlarge to respond to the huge changes in the world but it will be harder for it to take decisions."
The view that enlarging the Security Council would not help much is perhaps very much a Western one. Others think that wider membership would reduce tensions by producing a wider view.
India, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Nigeria and Egypt all have a claim to be permanent Council members, though realistically the veto would probably remain only with the current five. Germany and Japan are also strongly in line.
Indian Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha said in a BBC interview that the Council did not "reflect the reality of the 21st Century."
I trimmed it, full article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/3155934.stm)
My own personal opinion is that the UN is too divided, trying to get agreements from a wide variety of cultures and perspectives is always hard and add to that the fact that every country wants to maintain good relations with its neighbours and often has complex relations with various other nations through shared history, culture or various agreements; and the situation becomes unworkable. IMO they will never be in agreement about pre-emptive movement or even the use of decisive military intervention against any country, adding more members to the Security council will add some semblance of fair representation, (ie it would be good PR), but I think it would only be detrimental to the already fairly low effectiveness of the council. I personally think the UN security council is only useful as a peacekeeping force after the fighting is already finished. (ie only having to deal with militia and small threats)
Billy_Dean
10-02-2003, 02:13 PM
The worse part of the UN is the five vetos, that's what causes the stalemate.
Britain, France, The US, Russia and China. There's a fine bunch to be running the world!
:)
Calvarian2003
10-02-2003, 02:35 PM
I've a better five. I think the world would be a much better place if these five countries were in charge of the Security Council:
1. Libya
2. Syria
3. North Korea
4. Iran
5. China.... oops, too late!
Well who doesn't remember Tianamen Square? Oh wait, the Chinese... because their government controls their newspapers, censors their internet connections and has eliminated freedom of speech or information....
Billy_Dean
10-02-2003, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Calvarian2003@2 October 2003 - 23:35
I've a better five. I think the world would be a much better place if these five countries were in charge of the Security Council:
1. Libya
2. Syria
3. North Korea
4. Iran
5. China.... oops, too late!
Well who doesn't remember Tianamen Square? Oh wait, the Chinese... because their government controls their newspapers, censors their internet connections and has eliminated freedom of speech or information....
And your point is .... ?
:)
Calvarian2003
10-02-2003, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+2 October 2003 - 14:48--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 2 October 2003 - 14:48)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Calvarian2003@2 October 2003 - 23:35
I've a better five. I think the world would be a much better place if these five countries were in charge of the Security Council:
1. Libya
2. Syria
3. North Korea
4. Iran
5. China.... oops, too late!
Well who doesn't remember Tianamen Square? Oh wait, the Chinese... because their government controls their newspapers, censors their internet connections and has eliminated freedom of speech or information....
And your point is .... ?
:) [/b][/quote]
My point is you only miss a good thing when it's gone. My point is that the grass always appears greener on the other side. Don't be fooled, the US and Britain are keeping a lot of rogue nations in line. Otherwise Taiwan would be back in China, Israel would have been destroyed, Iran would have 'annexed' half the Middle East, and that choice unused real estate in Australia would have been 'repopulated' with Indonesians. Be grateful for what you've got. It could be much worse.
Billy_Dean
10-02-2003, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Calvarian2003@2 October 2003 - 23:59
My point is you only miss a good thing when it's gone. My point is that the grass always appears greener on the other side. Don't be fooled, the US and Britain are keeping a lot of rogue nations in line. Otherwise Taiwan would be back in China, Israel would have been destroyed, Iran would have 'annexed' half the Middle East, and that choice unused real estate in Australia would have been 'repopulated' with Indonesians. Be grateful for what you've got. It could be much worse.
Haha! You really are stupid, aren't you? It's not just an illusion.
This thread is about the ineffectiveness of the UN. The call is for it's reform, not it's abolition!
READ the posts!
:)
Calvarian2003
10-02-2003, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@2 October 2003 - 15:19
Haha! You really are stupid, aren't you? It's not just an illusion.
This thread is about the ineffectiveness of the UN. The call is for it's reform, not it's abolition!
READ the posts!
:) [/quote]
And you really are an ignoramus, aren't you? Why don't you read the posts?! I didn't call for the abolition of the UN! Even though it's an extremely biased organisation that seeks global dominion. The UN wants to eventually eliminate all small arms worldwide. That would mean infringing on the sovereign right of Americans and many others to own firearms. I'd like to see that.
It doesn't matter anyway. The UN will always be ineffective whilst dictatorships share equal rights with democracies. Look who the UN appointed to the Human Rights Commission - Libya and Syria! What a joke! Is this the sort of organisation you want ruling the world?
Why are democracies more valid than dictatorships?
Calvarian2003
10-02-2003, 04:04 PM
Because democracies don't kill, torture, maim, imprison without trial or reason, dictate, unfairly and cruelly punish, or enslave their people. Or at least, to nowhere near the extent dictatorships do. By allowing such governments into to the UN, the rest of the world is by default accepting their abusive form of government. Countries like that shouldn't have been admitted to the UN in the first place until they'd cleaned up their act. Just like the EU; countries have to prove that they are respectful to their citizens to gain entry. If this was the case with the UN, I'm sure many more people around the world would be able to enjoy the freedoms I and you, I assume, enjoy.
What time is it where you are, btw? It's 1am here. Time for me to head off methinks.
Dictatorships don't cruelly punish people, people cruelly punish people.
Billy_Dean
10-02-2003, 04:24 PM
What time is it where you are, btw? It's 1am here. Time for me to head off methinks.
Oh, shit, don't tell me he\she's Australian!
:)
Biggles
10-02-2003, 07:03 PM
I believe the veto is a hangover from the cold war and serves no useful purpose.
This cuts both ways.
Would the US and the Uk have managed to obtain UN backing without the veto? - perhaps.
Would the Palestinians feel less isolated and more prepared to engage in real dialogue without the veto? perhaps.
Something which served a purpose when two massive nuclear power blocks faced each other off in the 1950s should not be set in concrete. Let debate and negotiation in the broad forum of the UN take its place.
I appreciate there are vested interests, some poltical and some economic, but if humanity is to move on there needs to be a realignment in the way we deal with each other and, yes, with rogue states.
I also agree with the suggestion that there should (as in the EU) be minimum requirements regarding personal liberty and human rights. People don't try and avoid joining the EU they are falling over themselves to prove they meet these criteria. Turkey, for instance, is trying to turn around years of human rights abuse and has, significantly, not implemented the death penalty for some time now in order to prepare its way for membership.
I didn't really understand the comment regarding the UN's desire to see a reduction in the number of guns out there. I would have thought that was a self evident positive for the world. In the US the annual death toll of children killing themselves accidently with their parents weapons exceeds Europes murder toll of shootings (by quite a margin if I recall correctly). However, I appreciate there is a macho thing about guns in the US and many other countries like Colombia, Afghanistan and Liberia and these toys will not be given up easily.
Remember, the UN is not some alien body - it is simply the sum of its member states. What we need is for that sum to be greater than its component parts not less. It does a power of work in peace-keeping in numerous unsung places around the world and is involved in large numbers of development and teaching projects. Many of the soldiers who don the blue beret have spoken of the pride they felt at being involved in worthwhile projects and wished that their remit and support could have been stronger rather than that they had not been sent in the first place.
In summary , I think that the UN is a useful body and could, with a little goodwill, be even more useful.
J'Pol
10-02-2003, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Biggles@2 October 2003 - 20:03
I believe the veto is a hangover from the cold war and serves no useful purpose.
This cuts both ways.
Would the US and the Uk have managed to obtain UN backing without the veto? - perhaps.
Would the Palestinians feel less isolated and more prepared to engage in real dialogue without the veto? perhaps.
Something which served a purpose when two massive nuclear power blocks faced each other off in the 1950s should not be set in concrete. Let debate and negotiation in the broad forum of the UN take its place.
I appreciate there are vested interests, some poltical and some economic, but if humanity is to move on there needs to be a realignment in the way we deal with each other and, yes, with rogue states.
I also agree with the suggestion that there should (as in the EU) be minimum requirements regarding personal liberty and human rights. People don't try and avoid joining the EU they are falling over themselves to prove they meet these criteria. Turkey, for instance, is trying to turn around years of human rights abuse and has, significantly, not implemented the death penalty for some time now in order to prepare its way for membership.
I didn't really understand the comment regarding the UN's desire to see a reduction in the number of guns out there. I would have thought that was a self evident positive for the world. In the US the annual death toll of children killing themselves accidently with their parents weapons exceeds Europes murder toll of shootings (by quite a margin if I recall correctly). However, I appreciate there is a macho thing about guns in the US and many other countries like Colombia, Afghanistan and Liberia and these toys will not be given up easily.
Remember, the UN is not some alien body - it is simply the sum of its member states. What we need is for that sum to be greater than its component parts not less. It does a power of work in peace-keeping in numerous unsung places around the world and is involved in large numbers of development and teaching projects. Many of the soldiers who don the blue beret have spoken of the pride they felt at being involved in worthwhile projects and wished that their remit and support could have been stronger rather than that they had not been sent in the first place.
In summary , I think that the UN is a useful body and could, with a little goodwill, be even more useful.
Are you a mind reader, that is exactly, word for word, what I was going to say.
This post has been brought to you by the punctuation mark - comma
james_bond_rulez
10-02-2003, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by Calvarian2003@2 October 2003 - 14:35
I've a better five. I think the world would be a much better place if these five countries were in charge of the Security Council:
1. Libya
2. Syria
3. North Korea
4. Iran
5. China.... oops, too late!
Well who doesn't remember Tianamen Square? Oh wait, the Chinese... because their government controls their newspapers, censors their internet connections and has eliminated freedom of speech or information....
nah China can kick all their asses
North Korea wouldn't dare dissing China
Biggles
10-02-2003, 07:32 PM
:blink:
That is a relief. I had thought I had rather set myself up for a kicking.
:rolleyes:
J'Pol
10-02-2003, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by Biggles@2 October 2003 - 20:32
:blink:
That is a relief. I had thought I had rather set myself up for a kicking.
:rolleyes:
Shouldn't be a relief old bean, my last probably made the kicking more likely, not less. :blink:
Rat Faced
10-02-2003, 09:14 PM
Nicely put Biggles.
Billy......yes he is :rolleyes:
I think we have to get rid of the veto altogether, and look again at the role of the "permanent" members.
I believe these were made permanent because, at the time, they were the only 5 nuclear powers ( I may be wrong, i havent looked it up, and its been a long time since i was at school).........thats changed big time now.
If nuclear weapons is the criteria, then why arent Pakistan, India, Israel, South Africa.....etc etc etc permanent members?
And if some of these get in........
The U.N. is fine, in theory.
If someone could only tell me why:
Taiwan is not a member of the U.N.?
The U.N. Chair of the Sub-Committee on the "Promotion and Protection of Human Rights" is a Cuban, Miguel Alfonso Martinez?
The Human-Rights Council is dominated by documented abusers of human rights?
The U.N. shouldn't be considered the exemplar of global cronyism and politicization?
Either dissolve it and replace it or pave it over and rebuild it from scratch.
Re-charter it-
Keep the idea; toss the rest.
Biggles
10-03-2003, 06:14 PM
J2K4
The first one is easy
China has one of those damned vetos.
As to the compostion of various councils - well, is it a problem? The most common criticism of the UN is that these bodies are too politically correct and liberal. This would suggest that, regardless of domestic politics, the individuals selected do subscribe to the UN principles of human rights. Can't remember the last time a UN report said there should be more executions and torture not less. :rolleyes:
The UN tends to appoint the able within its ranks and they are expected to serve all nations without reference to their own domestic politics. I think if someone was seen to be simply following narrow parochial interests they wouldn't last long. Whilst it is true that Cuba is not the most democratic country on the planet it does not necessarily follow that the individual you cite is not a good and honourable man.
On a more general level, specifically in the main gathering of ambassadors there is, unfortunately, politicisation - most of the ambassadors have to answer to political masters. I can't see, in the medium term at least, a replacement body that would be free from all political interference. I am not even sure if that would be desireable or practical.
However, If someone has a blueprint for a better body I would happily support it, but I wouldn't get rid of the current body until the whites of the eyes of the replacement were visible.
I believe that for any organization that encompasses a widely disparate collection of interests, such as those of the membership of the U.N., to assume an inherent "chartered" resistance to unilateral interests is, as we say here in the U.S., whistleing Dixie".
Were the "Great Man Theory" more reliable, and "Great Men" in greater abundance, I could find myself a supporter of an international body such as the U.N., provided these Great Men were lining up for Kofi Annan's slot, but, alas, they are not.
There is no MAN capable of leading such an organization as the U.N., and that is the only thing that can make it work.
Biggles: I'm aware that China's veto is the reason; I am disappointed in my own country for not confronting them on the stupid intransigence of their insupportable position; those who think the U.S. "runs" the U.N. ignore such things.
Edit:Biggles/China addend.
thewizeard
10-04-2003, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by JPaul+2 October 2003 - 20:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul @ 2 October 2003 - 20:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@2 October 2003 - 20:03
I believe the veto is a hangover from the cold war and serves no useful purpose.
This cuts both ways.
Would the US and the Uk have managed to obtain UN backing without the veto? - perhaps.
Would the Palestinians feel less isolated and more prepared to engage in real dialogue without the veto? perhaps.
Something which served a purpose when two massive nuclear power blocks faced each other off in the 1950s should not be set in concrete. Let debate and negotiation in the broad forum of the UN take its place.
I appreciate there are vested interests, some poltical and some economic, but if humanity is to move on there needs to be a realignment in the way we deal with each other and, yes, with rogue states.
I also agree with the suggestion that there should (as in the EU) be minimum requirements regarding personal liberty and human rights. People don't try and avoid joining the EU they are falling over themselves to prove they meet these criteria. Turkey, for instance, is trying to turn around years of human rights abuse and has, significantly, not implemented the death penalty for some time now in order to prepare its way for membership.
I didn't really understand the comment regarding the UN's desire to see a reduction in the number of guns out there. I would have thought that was a self evident positive for the world. In the US the annual death toll of children killing themselves accidently with their parents weapons exceeds Europes murder toll of shootings (by quite a margin if I recall correctly). However, I appreciate there is a macho thing about guns in the US and many other countries like Colombia, Afghanistan and Liberia and these toys will not be given up easily.
Remember, the UN is not some alien body - it is simply the sum of its member states. What we need is for that sum to be greater than its component parts not less. It does a power of work in peace-keeping in numerous unsung places around the world and is involved in large numbers of development and teaching projects. Many of the soldiers who don the blue beret have spoken of the pride they felt at being involved in worthwhile projects and wished that their remit and support could have been stronger rather than that they had not been sent in the first place.
In summary , I think that the UN is a useful body and could, with a little goodwill, be even more useful.
Are you a mind reader, that is exactly, word for word, what I was going to say.
This post has been brought to you by the punctuation mark - comma [/b][/quote]
JPaul, you will soon be able to retire! ;)
Calvarian2003
10-04-2003, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@2 October 2003 - 16:24
Oh, shit, don't tell me he\she's Australian!
:)
Well, well.... you are observant aren't you BD. Want to criticise my nationality now, do you? I'd expect as much from a bigot such as yourself. Now we can add racist to your list of incredulous attributes.
Calvarian2003
10-04-2003, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@3 October 2003 - 17:29
The U.N. is fine, in theory.
If someone could only tell me why:
Taiwan is not a member of the U.N.?
The U.N. Chair of the Sub-Committee on the "Promotion and Protection of Human Rights" is a Cuban, Miguel Alfonso Martinez?
The Human-Rights Council is dominated by documented abusers of human rights?
The U.N. shouldn't be considered the exemplar of global cronyism and politicization?
Either dissolve it and replace it or pave it over and rebuild it from scratch.
Re-charter it-
Keep the idea; toss the rest.
Bravo j2k4! And here I thought that everyone was a UN apologetic. They're very good questions. I'd like to know the answers myself. The only problem is that these questions will never reach the people involved for fear of 'offending' someone.
I think I might know why Taiwan isn't a member of the UN though; perhaps everyone is expecting that Taiwan won't be around long enough in it's present form to be worthy of considering for UN membership. At least not if China has any say in the matter!
Edit: Typo
Calvarian2003
10-04-2003, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by Biggles@2 October 2003 - 19:03
I didn't really understand the comment regarding the UN's desire to see a reduction in the number of guns out there. I would have thought that was a self evident positive for the world. In the US the annual death toll of children killing themselves accidently with their parents weapons exceeds Europes murder toll of shootings (by quite a margin if I recall correctly). However, I appreciate there is a macho thing about guns in the US and many other countries like Colombia, Afghanistan and Liberia and these toys will not be given up easily.
The fact is that it's my God given right to own a firearm if I want to. Think of it this way; if the UN was to disarm a nation, the only people in that nation with guns would be the government and criminals. This would make the people impotent to protecting themselves from governmental oppression and leave them unable to defend themselves, including in their own homes, from burglars, thugs, etc.
Studies in the US at least, have shown that rates of civilian gun ownership correlate with LOWER criminal activity, not higher. If everyone owned a gun, sure there would be more accidental deaths, but criminals would think twice before mugging or robbing someone in case they lost their own life.
Billy_Dean
10-04-2003, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by Calvarian2003+4 October 2003 - 17:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Calvarian2003 @ 4 October 2003 - 17:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Billy_Dean@2 October 2003 - 16:24
Oh, shit, don't tell me he\she's Australian!
:)
Well, well.... you are observant aren't you BD. Want to criticise my nationality now, do you? I'd expect as much from a bigot such as yourself. Now we can add racist to your list of incredulous attributes. [/b][/quote]
You get worse and worse don't you?? Why don't you put your brain in gear BEFORE you open your hate-filled mouth??
If you'd read my posts, as you've claimed, you'd know that I too am Ausralian.
Your posts are full of lies, hatred and ignorance, if this is an example of your so-called religion, you are a good reason to avoid it.
Studies in the US at least, have shown that rates of civilian gun ownership correlate with LOWER criminal activity, not higher.
Where are these "reports"?
I think I might know why Taiwan isn't a member of the UN though; perhaps everyone is expecting that Taiwan won't be around long enough in it's present form to be worthy of considering for UN membership. At least not if China has any say in the matter!
More ignorance!
:)
Calvarian2003
10-04-2003, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@4 October 2003 - 08:59
You get worse and worse don't you?? Why don't you put your brain in gear BEFORE you open your hate-filled mouth??
If you'd read my posts, as you've claimed, you'd know that I too am Ausralian.
Your posts are full of lies, hatred and ignorance, if this is an example of your so-called religion, you are a good reason to avoid it.
Studies in the US at least, have shown that rates of civilian gun ownership correlate with LOWER criminal activity, not higher.
Where are these "reports"?
I think I might know why Taiwan isn't a member of the UN though; perhaps everyone is expecting that Taiwan won't be around long enough in it's present form to be worthy of considering for UN membership. At least not if China has any say in the matter!
More ignorance!
:)
1) I only joined this board one day ago. I have only read your postings in a handful of streams. I never said I read all of your postings. But you never mentioned you were Australian in any of your postings that I've read.
2) It's spelt 'Australian'. So much for literacy in Australia supposedly being 100%.
3) Lies, hatred and ignorance?! You think you know so much because you read articles on the internet that claim to deliver the 'truth'? Tell me what lies I've told. Go ahead.
4) I've read, I'd say, a dozen or so of your postings. And the ignorance and intolerance I've found inherent in them was enough to drive me to join this board. I think you called me intolerant at one point. Hilarious that you should say that, considering how intolerant you are of my opinion.
I can't find the website for the report I was referring to. I read it a while ago now. Here are some websites which make the same case however:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds39.html
This one is very well researched:
http://catholicsamurai.netfirms.com/legalgunprevent.htm
http://www.mail-archive.com/firearmsregpro...u/msg00218.html (http://www.mail-archive.com/
[email protected]/msg00218.html)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=21722 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21722)
I couldn't be bothered finding any more websites for you. I wasn't lying though. If I ever come across that report you can bet I'll post it.
This topic is widely debated and there are good points on either side. Whether or not you can see through you blinding bigotry and accept my point of view is another matter.
You've judged me on the basis of my opinions on a few postings on an online bulletin board. I never claimed to be perfect. And I admit, I'm probably not a good example of a Christian, because Christ preached pacifism and humility, and I am hardly passive.
I just can't stand by and listen to such stupidity without responding. It would be an insult to my inherent sense of justice.
Don't judge me; you have no idea.
I always think its stunning when i hear comments like
criminals would think twice before mugging or robbing someone in case they lost their own life.
IMO thats as much as advocating not only vigilantism, but up to the extent of allowing the death penalty for theft and or assault. You are essentially threatening the death penalty without any sort of trial or due process and over a mere robbery. Thats f*cked up.
There was a gun control thread (you'd have to dig it up) maybe if you think theres something new you could add to it....
Billy_Dean
10-04-2003, 10:00 AM
You should read your own links ..
Generally, there is more gun control in Europe, and less violent crime, than in America. Comparing gun ownership with crime or violent crime across countries at a single point in time disproves the high-ownership, high-crimes claim of the left, though it doesn’t prove the inverse relationship between guns and crime.
Catholic Samurai (http://catholicsamurai.netfirms.com/index.htm)
This is a quote from their home page ..
Don't believe shit you read here unless it is something you already agree with or you take the time to verify it for yourself.
Read this again! (http://www.mail-archive.com/
[email protected]/msg00218.html)
You really should read BEFORE you post, this one REFUTES your claims, read it again!
I'm glad you joined our little band of protagonists, your bullshit is nicely superficial.
:)
Calvarian2003
10-04-2003, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by ilw@4 October 2003 - 09:33
I always think its stunning when i hear comments like
criminals would think twice before mugging or robbing someone in case they lost their own life.
IMO thats as much as advocating not only vigilantism, but up to the extent of allowing the death penalty for theft and or assault. You are essentially threatening the death penalty without any sort of trial or due process and over a mere robbery. Thats f*cked up.
There was a gun control thread (you'd have to dig it up) maybe if you think theres something new you could add to it....
Okay, ilw, I shall amend that for you. "Criminals would think twice about committing armed assault in case they were injured themselves in the process."
Do you think it's wrong for people to defend themselves? Granted, killing someone for mugging you is extreme. But put yourself in the shoes of someone who is being threatened at gunpoint by a single man. You're about to be robbed or raped or God knows what. Are you going to care at that moment whether or not the person lives if your life is in such serious danger?
It's similar to the situation of wives killing their abusive husbands. I certainly don't agree with such wives killing their husbands while they're sleeping; that's murder. But if during an incident, the wife feared for her life, I'd say good on her for slaying the scumbag.
Biggles
10-04-2003, 12:49 PM
Calvarian
There is a strange mixture brewing in your argument that I don't understand.
On one hand you say that it is your God given right to own a gun.
On the other hand you concede that Jesus taught humility and peace. I believe he said that those that try "to save their lives by the sword will die by the sword". You do also point out that you don't feel you live up to this ideal. That is understandable and few can, but it does not sit easily with your first statement.
My view is that your argument would be stronger if you said it was your constitutional right to bear arms rather than involve God. Constitutions can be amended by general agreement - it tends to be a trickier if people start confusing the issue with divine rights.
I believe the US is in the process of disarming ordinary Iraqis with the aim of only leaving weapons in the hands of soldiers and the police. This is a perfectly logical step and would suggest that the US administration has no difficilty with the ethics of gun control. A strong domestic lobby is probably the only thing between this policy being implemented in Iraq and not in the US.
As to whether the US is a less violent society than Europe I cannot say. There are violent parts of every city in the world. Cities like New York and Washington can have more shootings in a holiday weekend than the UK does in a year - whether this means anything I am not sure. I believe I read somewhere that there is more chance of an old fashioned pub brawl happening in Europe than the US because everyone is reasonably confident that no one will pull a gun and spoil it - but as I can't recall the last time I saw a pub brawl I can't confirm or deny that.
I am content to be called an apologist for the UN, I take that as a positive position within a framework of constructive dialogue. I believe, on balance, that the UN does more good than harm. It could be more efficient and I have suggested ways that I would improve it. I appreciate that the US has encountered some criticism recently but temporary hiccups should not dictate long term policy. Kofi Anan has to represent the whole of the world (ex. Taiwan) the US only makes up 4% of the world population. It is inevitable he will from time to time express consensus views that might not be agreeable to one US administration - but then again may cause no difficulties for the next. Whilst a world body has to take heed of current political imperatives in any one country it will tend to look over the horizon and say "is this a long term problem?"
What format would you use as a focal point for dialogue for all the countries of the world?
Biggles-
Would that there were an international institution that performed strictly as a forum, yes?
It would be interesting to hear what would be communicated absent the odd and conflicting collage of alliances and such currently extant.
Billy_Dean
10-05-2003, 11:39 AM
It would be interesting to hear what would be communicated absent the odd and conflicting collage of alliances and such currently extant.
Sorry, could we have that again in English?
:)
Biggles
10-05-2003, 01:17 PM
J2K4
Perhaps
But any forum would inevitably be expected by the people of its constituent parts to take action in relation to, say, emergency aid for an earthquake, famine, refugees etc., The question is not whether such a body should have the offices to deal with such eventualities but rather the extent and scope of such offices.
I agree that the current network of alliances and conflicts of interest are tiresome but these will continue regardless of whether there is a UN or not. It could be argued that the UN serves a useful purpose in highlighting where such linkages exist - making international relations less of a lottery than say in pre-August 1914.
Originally posted by Biggles@5 October 2003 - 08:17
J2K4
Perhaps
But any forum would inevitably be expected by the people of its constituent parts to take action in relation to, say, emergency aid for an earthquake, famine, refugees etc., The question is not whether such a body should have the offices to deal with such eventualities but rather the extent and scope of such offices.
I agree that the current network of alliances and conflicts of interest are tiresome but these will continue regardless of whether there is a UN or not. It could be argued that the UN serves a useful purpose in highlighting where such linkages exist - making international relations less of a lottery than say in pre-August 1914.
Well-spotted, sir. ;)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.