USA Needs to Leave the UN ASAP

[adios]

I used to believe that the UN offered the best hope for wold peace. Since the majority of nations feel that removing a murderer and illegitimate ruler such as Hussein after 12 years of countless UN violations, where he has exploited and oppressed his people in the cruelest manner is mere meddling in another nation's affairs I no longer feel that way. It's time for us to leave that pack of weasels and form our own multilateral coalitions.

[Michael Davis]

By multilateral, of course, you mean unilateral and whatever is in the USA's best interests.

[scalf]

/forums/images/icons/smirk.gif john birch society agrees 100& with ya tom...lol...when i drive to casino in mississippi, i see a jb society billboard proclaiming same thing...ya both are correct..lol..gl /forums/images/icons/confused.gif /forums/images/icons/cool.gif /forums/images/icons/diamond.gif

[Jimbo]

By multilateral, of course, you mean unilateral and whatever is in the USA's best interests.

That would be correct! Just how often do you go out of your way to do something not in your best interests?

[Cyrus]

So. How many nations do you foresee joining a "coalition" as an alternative to the United Nations, that's formed on the strict basis of advancing American interests ? I would think that such a "coalition" would not have a long way to go, unless (a) the countries that formed it, besides the U.S., would soon abandon the democratic form of government, in one way or another, and (b) the country-members were to eventually place themselves under American sovereignty. You see, people in most countries tend to view their country's interest as more important than another's and would prefer to have that interest on some sort of equal footing. Whatever sort, even heavily diluted like the current U.N. set-up, which favors tremendously the permanent Security Council members.

True coalitions typically involve a measure of give-and-take, compromises and restraint. I do not think the U.S., in its most assertive mood ever, are in any way inclined to behave like that in the foreseeable future, unless so directed by the American voting public (and I meant that as a joke, folks). It's not at all bad per se to have such a strong superpower on the scene, and a superpower with strong liberal traditions to boot. What's truly disheartening is watching small men, like the current Washington cabal, trying to fit into the boots of world leaders.

[Jimbo]

Interesting post there Cyrus. I suppose you missed the part where just because something is good for the US doesn't mean it isn't good for other countries as well.

"True coalitions typically involve a measure of give-and-take, compromises."

Not at all, true coalitions involve a common goal not bargaining for the upper hand or unreasonable compromises.

"It's not at all bad per se to have such a strong superpower on the scene, and a superpower with strong liberal traditions to boot."

Actually the liberal traditions are our biggest weaknesses but we still overcome them.

"What's truly disheartening is watching small men, like the current Washington cabal, trying to fit into the boots of world leaders."

Well in 2008 you can vote for Al Gore or one of his clones if you like. Till then I hope President Bush continues to govern with the strength, compassion, virtue and personal values he has shown so far.

[IrishHand]

Not at all, true coalitions involve a common goal not bargaining for the upper hand or unreasonable compromises.
Coalitions are both those things. Coalitions are where distinct parties with distinct (and divergent) goals and agendas join together to accomplish things. Generally, these 'things' involve barganing and compromise - that is the essence of a coalition government, for example.

In order for an international organization to succeed at it's highest level, its member nations must be prepared to make sacrifices which are in the interests of the common good. Sadly, I realize that the high level of self-interest which possesses many sovereign nations will limit most international organizations present and future, to the barganing and compromise which characterizes coalitions in general and the US government in particular - or did you think that senators and congressmen voted with their hearts?

[Jimbo]

From Merriam-Webster:

coalition: a temporary alliance of distinct parties, persons, or states for joint action

I missed the bargaining and compromise part. Just calling something a coalition does not make it a pure coalition.

"- or did you think that senators and congressmen voted with their hearts? " Mr. Sterling does! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[IrishHand]

Just calling something a coalition does not make it a pure coalition.

I'm sorry - I must have forgotten the all-important distinction between a coalition and a "pure" coalition.

[Parmenides]

You trust the likes of the new butcher of baghdad (W.bush) to tell the truth? It's been proven he's lied repeatedly by using forged documents regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Many intelligence community officers have resigned over it. He and Cheney care not about human life, they care only about profit and W.s delusional belief that he is the 13th apostle sent from Jesus to convert Islam.

The US will win the battle of Iraq. It will lose the battle to convert Islam. History has taught the West this over and over again in the Crusades. W. isn't smart enough to learn from history.

[adios]

I believe 30 countries are directly supporting our efforts in Iraq. Perhaps you call it unilateral, I don't.

[BruceZ]

No such thing as coalitionistic. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif There is a colonoscopy, but that's different.

[Duke]

You, sir, are correct. The UN is a joke. The fact that it has no power at all to enforce any of its resolutions makes it a very effective waste of time.

I had a pretty long commentary on this all written, but I deleted it. I'd rather not get pissed off at more people for their witty ignorance.

Thanks for researching and thinking about what you're saying. I can't say that about a lot of people.

~D

[brad]

bush has US back in unesco. look it up

[Cyrus]

"coalition: a temporary alliance of distinct parties, persons, or states for joint action

I missed the bargaining and compromise part. Just calling something a coalition does not make it a pure coalition."

The dictionary is not the end-all. Don't treat it as your Koran. While the definition of a word is generally informative, there are many facets left obligatorily untouched. For instance, "coalition" : There has to be compromise ! This is because, by definition, a coalition is formed by distinct parties, parties with different interests, characteristics, philosophy, aims or set-ups. There is no such thing as a "perfect coalition" (what does your dictionary say about that?), because when you have total compatibility, you have the equivalent of a union/merger/integration.

Which brings us to the gist of the argument yet again: There exists a colossal imbalance of military power today that favors the United States. I submit that the means and the methods that the U.S. uses to apply that power will be crucial for its future success in the world stage; we are not living in military times, see. This is not as easy-peasy as it appears to be when Bush is looking down at the planet from his Mount Olympus. And I also submit that the dwarfs now in Washington are just not up to such a monumental task.

[Cyrus]

I like your "colonoscopic" word! As a matter of fact, it has now officially entered my lexilogion. Thanks.

Returning the favor, I give you "legitimoid" : a construction that wants to be legitimate and is actually not but doesn't know it.

[Jimbo]

Cyrus,

Baby carriage fifth assumed remotely in park obligated onlookers beyond lawful pyramids and reason?

Now if the words do not have a specific meaning how would you understand that I just meant: How are we to communicate if you change the meaning of words at your whim?

This is why a dictionary is useful. Simply because you and IrishHand say compromise is necessary for a coalition to exist harldy makes it true. It certainly may make a coalition easier to form, manage and grow but it is not a necessity.

[Cyrus]

"Baby carriage fifth assumed remotely in park obligated onlookers beyond lawful pyramids and reason?"

Don Van Vliet, come back, all is forgiven.

"Simply because you ... say compromise is necessary for a coalition to exist harldy makes it true."

Name any coalition you want, I mean a real one, be it from business, the military or politics. From any time in History. And I will show you a compromise or a mutual understanding. Which is what I claimed is contained in any kind of "temporary alliance of distinct parties, persons, or states" as your dixionary defines coalition.