Is the US becoming a "rogue state"?

[Feisty Mouse]

I think some of the emphasis on the USA being a "sovereign entity" doesn't make sense to me - that somehow, by participating in the UN, we are giving something up.

I think, whether someone sees our actions as "rogue" or not, that it is at the very least *unwise* to turn our backs on other nations in the world, when our primary concern is terrorism. I would want to be in a room of friends, rather than a room of enemies or not-really-sure-about-me folks if I thought someone might try to stab me in the back.

I think it is foolish to emphasize the US's greatness, and assume that we will remain in this position of global power indefinetly, especially if we are not maintaining hospitable relations with other countries. What happens if and when we are no longer the economic superpower? Will we still think the UN is a silly thing to be involved in? I think not.

 

[heretic888]

I think some of the emphasis on the USA being a "sovereign entity" doesn't make sense to me - that somehow, by participating in the UN, we are giving something up.

Yup. Its a very simple case of ethnocentrism/sociocentrism versus worldcentrism. Plain and simple.

Its really not even a "conservative" thing, as opposed to a jingoistic one. There are lots of worldcentrically-minded "conservatives", as both McCain and Powell immediately come to mind.

Nope, the enemy here is the rampant xenophobic jingoism that has infected the rank and file of America's politics. "My country, right or wrong" is not the proper way to conduct one's business as an "enlightened" civilization.

 

[Tgace]

My ancestors didnt leave Europe back in the 1700-1800's because it was so darn wonderful that they couldnt stand it...now dont misunderstand me Im not "for" disregarding the wants, needs and opinions of other nations, but I would be careful how much power we give other organizations, powers or nations in regards to controlling our own destiny. Or the rights of our citizens.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

How is participating in the UN - or ratifying an agreement with other nations - removing rights from US citizens? I think agreements like NAFTA have taken away more rights and more economic opportunities from US citizens than I can mention, but I don't see the UN agreements doing that.

But, again, NAFTA is for a different thread.

 

[Tgace]

World Court

 

[Feisty Mouse]

So shouldn't we participate in it? Please tell me what you are getting at.

 

[Tgace]

All I said was "I would be careful how much power we give other organizations, powers or nations in regards to controlling our own destiny. Or the rights of our citizens."...that being said I would be very careful in giving other Nations Judicial power over US citizens. Even Clinton, who signed on had reservations about this one...

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa050602b.htm

Our nation was founded by people who didnt trust foriegn powers to control our destiny. I agree...co-operation with other nations is another thing. Tread with care is all I say.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Agreed. I appreciate your sentiments! :cheers:

 

[heretic888]

My ancestors didnt leave Europe back in the 1700-1800's because it was so darn wonderful that they couldnt stand it...now dont misunderstand me Im not "for" disregarding the wants, needs and opinions of other nations, but I would be careful how much power we give other organizations, powers or nations in regards to controlling our own destiny. Or the rights of our citizens.

Yes, but fortunately that is not what groups like the UN are about at all.

Organizations like the UN are based on the simple premise of "hey, let's talk." Very simply, that its a better idea to use diplomacy and act like truly civilized beings, discussing our differences in an enlightened way.

No biggy here, its pretty basic stuff --- this is what the ideals of democracy are built upon.

The last time I checked, the UN does not "require" that its members do anything you implied, nor does the UN impose its will on its members at all.\

Its really just a fancy discussion forum for the international community. That's all, really.

 

[Tgace]

Agreed. I appreciate your sentiments! :cheers:

 

[michaeledward]

All I said was "I would be careful how much power we give other organizations, powers or nations in regards to controlling our own destiny. Or the rights of our citizens."...that being said I would be very careful in giving other Nations Judicial power over US citizens. Even Clinton, who signed on had reservations about this one...

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa050602b.htm

Our nation was founded by people who didnt trust foriegn powers to control our destiny. I agree...co-operation with other nations is another thing. Tread with care is all I say.

But doesn't the Internation Criminal Court only have jurisdiction over 'war crimes' and 'crimes against humanity' if the United States government does not act on those crimes in our own system of jurisprudence?

Is that position tantamount to arguing for the right to commit 'war crimes' and 'crimes against humanity' by the government?

Mike

 

[qizmoduis]

How is participating in the UN - or ratifying an agreement with other nations - removing rights from US citizens? I think agreements like NAFTA have taken away more rights and more economic opportunities from US citizens than I can mention, but I don't see the UN agreements doing that.

But, again, NAFTA is for a different thread.

There's actually a very large religious component underlying the right-wing distrust of the UN. They consider the UN the precursor the the world government they claim will be the tool of Satan as predicted in the book of Revelations.

Of course, you'll never see the leaders proclaiming this nonsense, but it's there.

 

[heretic888]

There's actually a very large religious component underlying the right-wing distrust of the UN. They consider the UN the precursor the the world government they claim will be the tool of Satan as predicted in the book of Revelations.

That's one of the basic premises of that "Left Behind" garbage, I believe.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

There's actually a very large religious component underlying the right-wing distrust of the UN. They consider the UN the precursor the the world government they claim will be the tool of Satan as predicted in the book of Revelations.

Of course, you'll never see the leaders proclaiming this nonsense, but it's there.

Huh! I've heard one or two things like that on some pretty interesting radio programs, but it seemed so ridiculous....

gank

That's one of the basic premises of that "Left Behind" garbage, I believe.

I didn't realize that was such a huge market, until I sat next to someone on a plane flight who was reading number, what, 6 or 8 or something. She told me all about it. Then I saw them everywhere. It was even funnier because she asked me what I was reading, which was a manuscript on evolution and sex.

/gank

 

[michaeledward]

Then I saw them everywhere. It was even funnier because she asked me what I was reading, which was a manuscript on evolution and sex.

Just a guess here .... but I am thinking your book was WAY more interesting than her book.

 

[heretic888]

Dunno about "interesting", but even a cursory glance at the plot of the Left Behind series leaves little doubt that its just a thinly-veiled work of propaganda for the Religous Right.

Let's review some of the key themes:

- Israel is hailed as some sort of asylum for the "true believers", and should be supported no matter what.

- The leader of the UN is some kind of uber-atheist Antichrist seeking to eradicate all "true believers".

- There is a worldwide "secular" campaign to persecute the world's Christians into extinction. To defeat this campaign, the world's remaining "true believer" Christians have to bind together and unite forces against their common foe.

- God has picked out some people, who are "special" or "chosen", based (of course) on their religous and philosophical beliefs.

Yup. No political overtones in there at all.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Just a guess here .... but I am thinking your book was WAY more interesting than her book.

(Well, I thought so...!) It was a meeting of different worlds, kind of. I did manage to talk about books eventually, because her husband next to her was reading The Two Towers, which I could effuse about.

 

[heretic888]

I did manage to talk about books eventually, because her husband next to her was reading The Two Towers, which I could effuse about.

Wow. He was reading some Tolkien while she was reading Left Behind??

Its almost like seeing two people reading Mein Kampf and Hegel's 'Phenomenology of Spirit' side by side....

 

[Tgace]

"But if we are to be told by a foreign Power...what we shall do, and what we shall not do, we have Independence yet to seek, and have contended hitherto for very little." -George Washington

 

[hardheadjarhead]

- The leader of the UN is some kind of uber-atheist Antichrist seeking to eradicate all "true believers".

This is the crux of some of the "survivalist" and militant right wing groups in America. The notion of a "New World Order" wherein UN troops invade America is pretty popular with them. One woman in a gun store (selling me the gun) used to go through the paper and count the number of times she could find "new world order" instead of doing crossword puzzles. She said she found it "all the time". I suspect that was reaching a bit. The phrase, interestingly, was coined by George HW Bush.

Also interesting how the UN has replaced the Soviet Union in their minds as the arch nemesis now that the Cold War is over.

Regards,


Steve