So now I will explain you something, [censored]

[Arnfinn Madsen]

You expressed in the [censored]-ology thread that you felt that some/many/all liberals do not fully respect democracy and that you feared this (you did not elaborate if the fair was strong or weak).

Many non-US citizens view the UN as some sort of world parliament thus the US mocking of UN followed by the Iraqi-war was seen as a disrespect of international law. They saw US as a minority using violence to get things it way. This is the source of much of the fear and anger. Your fears are becoming real for many citizens in this world.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
You expressed in the [censored]-ology thread that you felt that some/many/all liberals do not fully respect democracy and that you feared this (you did not elaborate if the fair was strong or weak).

Many non-US citizens view the UN as some sort of world parliament thus the US mocking of UN followed by the Iraqi-war was seen as a disrespect of international law. They saw US as a minority using violence to get things it way. This is the source of much of the fear and anger. Your fears are becoming real for many citizens in this world.

[/ QUOTE ]

that is fine for them to believe that. However we in US believe in our own right of determination and do not recognize the authority of a foriegn body like the UN in determining issues like our national security.

the only question for the world is what are you prepared to do about it?

also as a side note the UN is comprised of many nations who in no way respect the will or freedom of their own people. thus I think it is quite logical for the US citizens to place little weight in the decisions of that body.

conversly if the UN was comprised of only those nations under some form of representative goverment. it's decisions would carry much more weight in determining how I felt about certain issues like going to war.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I know your view is very common in the US, just wanted to give you an insight into why you are viewed as undemocratic.

What got me thinking of the similarities, was a story the French foreign minister told about the running-up to the French veto in the UN security council. He had spoken to all the members of the security council and knew there was a majority against the US proposal.

He then said that France thus did not need to veto but some of the other countries expressed fear upon how the US would punish them if they voted no and pledged France to veto to relieve them of that burden. Finally the French president decided to announce his veto thus pushing US to retreat the proposal and avoiding a vote, saving the small countries from US retaliation.

Among all citizens who acknowledges UN as the authority on international law and human rights such stories are scary as it would be to you if you knew Liberals used undemocratic methods to get things their way.

[[censored]]

also international law only exist if the members of a nation want it to. Otherwise the only option for the offended nations is force.

thus the question becomes if the other nations felt the US violated international law but did nothing about it, ie breaking the law carried no consequence, did the law exist in the first place? I say clearly no.

[[censored]]

I guess what I am saying is that international law does not exist as currently there is no desire amongst those who subscribe to it to see it enforced wholly and fully.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
also international law only exist if the members of a nation want it to. Otherwise the only option for the offended nations is force.

thus the question becomes if the other nations felt the US violated international law but did nothing about it, ie breaking the law carried no consequence, did the law exist in the first place? I say clearly no.

[/ QUOTE ]

The law excisted, but there was no police in place to authorize it, but that does not relieve US from the criminal-stamp.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
also international law only exist if the members of a nation want it to. Otherwise the only option for the offended nations is force.

thus the question becomes if the other nations felt the US violated international law but did nothing about it, ie breaking the law carried no consequence, did the law exist in the first place? I say clearly no.

[/ QUOTE ]

The law excisted, but there was no police in place to authorize it, but that does not relieve US from the criminal-stamp.

[/ QUOTE ]

if a law cannot be enforced it cannot very well be law now can it?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess what I am saying is that international law does not exist as currently there is no desire amongst those who subscribe to it to see it enforced wholly and fully.

[/ QUOTE ]

The desire is big among many, they lack the ability.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
also international law only exist if the members of a nation want it to. Otherwise the only option for the offended nations is force.

thus the question becomes if the other nations felt the US violated international law but did nothing about it, ie breaking the law carried no consequence, did the law exist in the first place? I say clearly no.

[/ QUOTE ]

The law excisted, but there was no police in place to authorize it, but that does not relieve US from the criminal-stamp.

[/ QUOTE ]

if a law cannot be enforced it cannot very well be law now can it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not de facto law anymore, thus easeing the decision process for other countries considering to violate it.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
also international law only exist if the members of a nation want it to. Otherwise the only option for the offended nations is force.

thus the question becomes if the other nations felt the US violated international law but did nothing about it, ie breaking the law carried no consequence, did the law exist in the first place? I say clearly no.

[/ QUOTE ]

The law excisted, but there was no police in place to authorize it, but that does not relieve US from the criminal-stamp.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it would be logical to argue that international exists for some countries but not all. that is the less powerful nations are required to follow international law but the more powerfurl nations are not.

this may not be something many like but it is hard to argue that is not the reality.

from this you can clearly see the benefits a society recieves from deciding to fund a strong military power.