Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
U.N.: What Do You Think?  
User currently offlineDG_pilot From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 856 posts, RR: 2
Posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1125 times:

Here's a good summary of what I believe as far as the U.N. and my country's sovereignty.

-Dustin
------------------------------------------------------

Senator Helms on the UN's New World Order: Americans oppose UN's attempt to undermine U.S. sovereignty

North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms speaking before the United Nations Security Council on January 20, 2000.

[ Opening remarks, etc.]

I am told that this is the first time that a United States Senator has addressed the UN Security Council. I sincerely hope it will not be the last. It is important that this body have greater contact with the elected representatives of the American people, and that we have greater contact with you.
[...]

I am confident you have seen the public opinion polls, commissioned by UN supporters, suggesting that the UN enjoys the support of the American public. I would caution that you not put too much confidence in those polls. Since I was elected to the Senate in 1972, I have run for re-election four times. Each time, the pollsters have confidently predicted my defeat. Each time, I am happy to confide, they have been wrong. I am pleased that, thus far, I have never won a poll or lost an election.

So, as those of you who represent democratic nations well know, public opinion polls can be constructed to tell you anything the poll takers want you to hear.

Let me share with you what the American people tell me. Since I became chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have received literally thousands of letters from Americans all across the country expressing their deep frustration with this institution. They know instinctively that the UN lives and breathes on the hard-earned money of the American taxpayers. And yet they have heard comments here in New York constantly calling the United States a "deadbeat.

They have heard UN officials declaring absurdly that countries like Fiji and Bangladesh are carrying America's burden in peacekeeping. They see the majority of the UN members routinely voting against America in the General Assembly.

They have read the reports of the raucous cheering of the UN delegates in Rome when U.S. efforts to amend the International Criminal Court treaty to protect American soldiers were defeated.

They read in the newspapers, despite all the human rights abuses taking place in dictatorships across the globe, a UN 'Special Rapporteur' decided his most pressing task was to investigate human rights violations in the U.S. - and found our human rights record wanting.

The American people hear all this; they resent it, and they have grown increasingly frustrated with what they feel is a lack of gratitude.

Now I won't delve into every point of frustration, but let's touch for just a moment on one - the 'deadbeat' charge. Before coming here, I asked the United States General Accounting Office to assess just how much the American taxpayers contributed to the United Nations in 1999. Here is what the GAO reported to me: Last year [1999], the American people contributed a total of more than $1.4 BILLION dollars to the UN system in assessments and voluntary contributions. That's pretty generous, but it's only the tip of the iceberg. The American taxpayers also spent an additional $8,779,000,000 from the United States' military budget to support various UN resolutions and peacekeeping operations around the world. Let me repeat that figure: $8,779,000,000 [billions].

That means that last year [1999] alone, the American people have furnished precisely $10,179,000,000 to support the work of the United Nations. No other nation on earth comes even close to matching that singular investment.

So you can see why many Americans reject the suggestion that theirs is a 'deadbeat' nation. Now, I grant you, the money we spend on the UN is not charity. To the contrary, it is an investment - an investment from which the American people rightly expect a return. They expect a reformed UN that works more efficiently, and which respects the sovereignty of the United States.

That is why in the 1980s, Congress began withholding a fraction of our arrears as pressure for reform. And Congressional pressure resulted in some worthwhile reforms, such as the creation of an independent UN Inspector General and the adoption of consensus budgeting practices. But still, the arrears accumulated as the UN resisted more comprehensive reforms.

When the distinguished Secretary General, Kofi Annan, was elected, some of us in the Senate decided to try to establish a working relationship. The result is the Helms-Biden law, which President Clinton finally signed into law this past November [1999]. The product of three years of arduous negotiations and hard-fought compromises; it was approved by the U.S. Senate by an overwhelming 98-1 margin. You should read that vote as a virtually unanimous mandate for a new relationship with a reformed United Nations.

Now, I am aware that this law does not sit well with some here at the UN. Some do not like to have reforms dictated by the U.S. Congress. Some have even suggested that the UN should reject these reforms.

But let me suggest a few things to consider: First, as the figures I have cited clearly demonstrate, the United States is the single largest investor in the United Nations. Under the U.S. Constitution, we in Congress are the sole guardians of the American taxpayer's money. It is our solemn duty to see that it is wisely invested. So as the representatives of the UN's largest investors - the American people - we have not only the right, but a responsibility, to insist on specific reforms in exchange for their investment.

Second, I ask you to consider the alternative. The alternative would have been to continue to let the U.S.-UN relationship spiral out of control. You would have taken retaliatory measures, such as revoking America's in the General Assembly. Congress would likely have responded with retaliatory measures against the UN. And the end result, I believe, would have been a breach in the U.S.-UN relations that would have served the interest of no one. Now some here may contend that the Clinton Administration should have fought to pay the arrears without conditions. I assure you, had they done so, they would have lost.

Eighty years ago, Woodrow Wilson failed to secure Congressional support for U.S. entry into the League of Nations. This administration obviously learned from President Wilson's mistakes.

Wilson probably could have achieved ratification of the League of Nations if he had worked with Congress. One of my predecessors as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Henry Cabot Lodge, asked for 14 conditions to the treaty establishing the League of Nations, few of which would have raised an eyebrow today. These included language to insure that the United States remain the sole judge of its own internal affairs; That the League not restrict any individual rights of U.S. citizens; that the Congress retain sole authority for the deployment of U.S. forces through the league, and so on.

But President Wilson indignantly refused to compromise with Senator Lodge. He shouted, 'Never, never!,' adding, 'I'll never consent to adopting any policy with which that impossible man is so prominently identified!' What happened? President Wilson lost. The final vote in the Senate was 38 to 53, and the League of Nations withered on the vine.

Ambassador Holbrooke and Secretary Albright understood from the beginning that the United Nations could not long survive without the support of the American people - and their elected representatives in Congress. Thanks to the efforts of leaders like Ambassador Holbrooke and Secretary Albright, the present Administration in Washington did not repeat President Wilson's fatal mistakes.

In any event, Congress has written a check to the United Nations for $926 million, payable upon the implementation of previously agreed-upon common-sense reforms. Now the choice is up to the UN. I suggest that if the UN were to reject this compromise, it would mark the beginning of the end of U.S. support for the United Nations.

I don't want that to happen. I want the American people to value a United Nations that recognizes and respects their interests, and for the United Nations to value the significant contributions of the American people. Let's be crystal clear and totally honest with each other: all of us want a more effective United Nations. But if the United Nations is to be 'effective,' it must be an institution that is needed by the great democratic powers of the world.

Most Americans do not regard the United Nations as an end in and of itself - they see it as just one part of America's diplomatic arsenal. To the extent that the UN is effective, the American people will support it. To the extent that it becomes ineffective - or even worse, a burden - the American people will cast it aside.

The American people want the UN to serve the purpose for which it was designed: they want it to help sovereign states coordinate collective action by 'coalitions of the willing' (where the political will for such action exists); they want it to provide a forum where diplomats can meet and open channels of communication in times of crisis; they want it to provide to the peoples of the world important services, such as peacekeeping, weapons inspections and humanitarian relief.

This is important work. It is the core of what the UN can offer to the United States and the world. If, in the coming century, the UN focuses on doing these core tasks well, it can thrive and will earn and deserve the support of the American people. But if the UN seeks to move beyond these core tasks, if it seeks to impose the UN's power and authority over nation-states, I guarantee that the United Nations will meet stiff resistance from the American people.

As matters now stand, many Americans sense that the UN has greater ambitions than simply being an efficient deliverer of humanitarian aid, a more effective peacekeeper, a better weapons inspector, and a more effective tool of great power diplomacy. They see the UN aspiring to establish itself as the central authority of a new international order of global laws and global governance. This is an international order the American people will not countenance.

The UN must respect national sovereignty. The UN serves nation-states, not the other way around. This principle is central to the legitimacy and ultimate survival of the United Nations, and it is a principle that must be protected.

The Secretary General recently delivered an address on sovereignty to the General Assembly, in which he declared that 'the last right of states cannot and must not be the right to enslave, persecute or torture their own citizens.' The peoples of the world, he said, have 'rights beyond borders.' I wholeheartedly agree.

What the Secretary General calls 'rights beyond borders,' we in America call 'inalienable rights.' We are endowed with those 'inalienable rights ,' as Thomas Jefferson proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence, not by kings or despots, but by our Creator.

The sovereignty of nations must be respected. But nations derive their sovereignty - their legitimacy - from the consent of the governed. Thus, it follows, that nations can lose their legitimacy when they rule without the consent of the governed; they deservedly discard their sovereignty by brutally oppressing their people.

Slobodan Milosevic cannot claim sovereignty over Kosovo when he has murdered Kosovars and piled their bodies into mass graves. Neither can Fidel Castro claim that it is his sovereign right to oppress his people. Nor can Saddam Hussein defend his oppression of the Iraqi people by hiding behind phony claims of sovereignty. And when the oppressed peoples of the world cry out for help, the free peoples of the world have a fundamental right to respond.

As we watch the UN struggle with this question at the turn of the millennium, many Americans are left exceedingly puzzled. Intervening in cases of widespread oppression and massive human rights abuses is not a new concept for the United States. The American people have a long history of coming to the aid of those struggling for freedom. In the United States, during the 1980s, we called this policy the "Reagan Doctrine.

In some cases, America has assisted freedom fighters around the world who were seeking to overthrow corrupt regimes. We have provided weaponry, training, and intelligence. In other cases, the United States has intervened directly. In still other cases, such as in Central and Eastern Europe, we supported peaceful opposition movements with moral, financial, and covert forms of support. In each case, however, it was America's clear intention to help bring down Communist regimes that were oppressing their peoples, and thereby replace dictators with democratic governments. The dramatic expansion of freedom in the last decade of the 20th century is a direct result of these policies.

In none of these cases, however, did the United States ask for, or receive, the approval of the United Nations to 'legitimize' its actions. It is a fanciful notion that a free peoples need to seek approval of an international body - some of whose members are totalitarian dictatorships - to lend support to nations struggling to break the chains of tyranny and claim their inalienable, God-given rights. The United Nations has no power to grant or decline legitimacy to such actions. They are inherently legitimate.

What the United Nations can do is help. The Security Council can, where appropriate, be an instrument to facilitate action by 'coalitions of the willing,' implement sanctions against regimes, and provide logistical support to states undertaking collective action.

But complete candor is imperative: The Security Council has an exceedingly mixed record in being such a facilitator. In the case of Iraq's aggression against Kuwait in the early 1990s, it performed admirably; in the more recent case of Kosovo, it was paralyzed. The UN peacekeeping mission in Bosnia was a disaster, and its failure to protect the Bosnian people from Serb genocide is well documented in a recent UN report.

And, despite its initial success in repelling Iraqi aggression, in the years since the Gulf War, the Security Council has utterly failed to stop Saddam Hussein's drive to build instruments of mass murder. It has allowed him to play a repeated game of expelling UNSCOM inspection teams which included Americans, and has left Saddam completely free for the past year to fashion nuclear and chemical weapons of mass destruction.

I am here to plead that from now on we all must work together, to learn from past mistakes, and to make the Security Council a more efficient and effective tool for international peace and security. But candor compels that I reiterate this warning: the American people will never accept claims of the United Nations to be the 'sole source of legitimacy on the use of force' in the world.

But some may respond, the U.S. Senate ratified the UN Charter fifty years ago. Yes, but in doing so we did not cede one syllable of American sovereignty to the United Nation. "Under our system, when international treaties are ratified they simply become domestic U.S. law. As such, they carry no greater or lesser weight than any other domestic U.S. law. Treaty obligations can be superceded by a simple act of Congress. This was the intentional design of our founding fathers, who cautioned against entering into 'entangling alliances.'

Thus, when the United States joins a treaty organization, it holds no authority over us. We abide by our treaty obligations because they are the domestic law of our land, and because our elected leaders have judged that the agreement serves our national interest. But no treaty or law can ever supercede the one document that all Americans hold sacred: The U.S. Constitution.

The American people do not want the United Nations to become an 'entangling alliance.' That is why Americans look with alarm at UN claims to a monopoly on international moral legitimacy. They see this as a threat to the God-given freedoms of the American people, a claim of political authority over America and its elected leaders without their consent.

The effort to establish a United Nations International Court is a case-in-point. Consider: the Rome Treaty purports to hold American citizens under its jurisdiction - even when the United States has neither signed nor ratified the treaty. In other words, it claims sovereign authority over American citizens without their consent. How can the nations of the world imagine for one instant that Americans will stand by and allow such a power-grab to take place?

The Court's supporters argue that Americans should be willing to sacrifice some of their sovereignty for the noble cause of international justice. International law did not defeat Hitler, nor did it win the Cold War. What stopped the Nazi march across Europe, and the Communist march across the world, was the principled projection of power by the world's great democracies. And that principled projection of force is the only thing that will ensure the peace and security of the world in the future.

More often than not, 'international law' has been used as a make-believe justification for hindering the march of freedom. When Ronald Reagan sent American servicemen into harm's way to liberate Grenada from the hands of a Communist dictatorship, the UN General Assembly responded by voting to condemn the action of the elected President of the United States as a violation of international law - and, I am obliged to add, they did so by a larger majority than when the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was condemned by the same General Assembly! Similarly, the U.S. effort to overthrow Nicaragua's Communist dictatorship - by supporting Nicaragua's freedom fighters and mining Nicaragua's harbors - was declared by the World Court as a violation of international law.

Most recently, we learn that the chief prosecutor of the Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal has compiled a report on possible NATO war crimes during the Kosovo campaign. At first, the prosecutor declared that it is fully within the scope of her authority to indict NATO pilots and commanders. When news of her report leaked, she back-pedaled. She realized, I am sure, that any attempt to indict NATO commanders would be the death knell for the International Criminal Court. But the very fact that she explored this possibility at all brings to light all that is wrong with this brave new world of global justice, which proposes a system in which independent prosecutors and judges, answerable to no state or institution, have fettered power to sit in judgment of the foreign policy decisions of Western democracies.

No UN institution - not the Security Council, not the Yugoslav tribunal, not a future ICC - is competent to judge the foreign policy and national security decisions of the United States. American courts routinely refuse cases where they are asked to sit in judgment of our government's national security decisions, stating that they are not competent to judge such decisions. If we do not submit our national security decisions to the judgment of a Court of the United States, why would Americans submit them to the judgment of an International Criminal Court, a continent away, comprised of mostly foreign judges elected by an international body made up of the membership of the UN General Assembly?

Americans distrust concepts like the International Criminal Court, and claims by the UN to be the 'sole source of legitimacy' for the use of force, because Americans have a profound distrust of accumulated power. Our founding fathers created a government founded on a system of checks and balances, and dispersal of power.

In his 1962 classic, Capitalism and Freedom, the Nobel-prize winning economist Milton Friedman rightly declared: 'Government power must be dispersed. If government is to exercise power, better in the county than in the state, better in the state than in Washington. [Because] if I do not like what my local community does, I can move to another local community...[and] if I do not like what my state does, I can move to another. [But] if I do not like what Washington imposes, I have few alternatives in this world of jealous nations.

Forty years later, as the UN seeks to impose its utopian vision of 'international law' on Americans, we can add this question: Where do we go when we don't like the 'laws' of the world? "Today, while our friends in Europe concede more and more power upwards to supranational institutions like the European Union, Americans are heading the opposite direction. America is in the process of reducing centralized power by taking more and more authority that had been amassed by the Federal Government in Washington and referring it to the individual states where it rightly belongs.

This is why Americans reject the idea of a sovereign United Nations that presumes to be the source of legitimacy for the United States Government's policies, foreign or domestic. There is only one source of legitimacy of the American government's policies - and that is the consent of the American people.

If the United Nations is to survive into the 21st Century, it must recognize its limitation. The demands of the United States have not changed much since Henry Cabot Lodge laid out his conditions for joining the League of Nations 80 years ago: Americans want to ensure that the United States remains the sole judge of its own internal affairs, that the United Nations is not allowed to restrict the individual rights of U.S. citizens, and that the United States retains sole authority over the deployment of the United States force around the world.

This is what Americans ask of the United Nations; it is what Americans expect of the United Nations. A United Nations that focuses on helping sovereign states work together is worth keeping; a United Nations that insists on trying to impose a utopian vision on America and the world will collapse under its own weight.

If the United Nations respects the sovereign rights of the American people and serves them as an effective tool of diplomacy, it will earn and deserve their respect and support. But a United Nations that seeks to impose its presumed authority on the American people without their consent begs for confrontation and, I want to be candid, eventual U.S. withdrawal.


72 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBrissie_lions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1082 times:

I have had enough of this garbage.

For once and for all Dustin. What makes you think that America is so beyond criticism, etc in the international community?

Why should American soldiers be held responsible under International Criminal Justice laws? Serbian soldiers are. Aussie soldiers are. Japanese soldiers are. Why not American?

Why shouldn't America be criticised for its human rights record? China is. Australia is. Russia is. South Africa is. Why not America?

The United Nation is (ideally) an organisation where a member such as Fiji, has as much say as America, who (ideally) has as much say as Bhutan. Why can't America handle this? After all, this is DEMOCRACY.

If America doesn't want to deal with the United Nations, here is a great solution. LEAVE!


User currently offline9A-CRO From Croatia, joined Jun 2000, 1574 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1078 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

well dear Dustin - UN is not:
A) PROFITABLE ORGANIZATION
B) US ORGANIZATION
the reason for US pays most is that is the richest country in the world - you wouldn't expect Bangladesh or Erithrea to pay 10billion US$, would you?
and US is nearly always obstructing international agreements - ban on landmines, enviromental agreements, international war crimes court
why should Croatia send its soldiers to international court in Den Haag when US doesn't have to?
and that sh** about prosecuting themselves - US court freed that bastyard that was showing off with his stupid miliary jet and killed quite many people when he hit the cable car wires

that Jesse guy realy makes too long speeches - he speaks longer than Fidel Castro



When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward...
User currently offline747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1074 times:

U.N.--over flowing cesspool.

User currently offlineDG_pilot From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 856 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1070 times:

"""Why should American soldiers be held responsible under International Criminal Justice laws? Serbian soldiers are. Aussie soldiers are. Japanese soldiers are. Why not American?"""

I, or the article, said nothing about us being 'exempt' from the laws, we think they are an insult to our sovereignty. The U.N. does not even have the authority to do establish these laws, on anyone.

Many Americans feel that the U.N. has assumed powers into an global governmental organization, one that disrespects and trashes national sovereignty and individual rights.

Many Americans would favor drastic U.N. reform, or, even withdrawl if the former proposal is not achieved.

-Dustin


User currently offlineMx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1063 times:

Dustin,

"""Many Americans feel that the U.N. has assumed powers into an global governmental organization, one that disrespects and trashes national sovereignty and individual rights.

Many Americans would favor drastic U.N. reform, or, even withdrawl if the former proposal is not achieved"""

Obviously no Aliens have visited your part of town recently.

mb


User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4781 posts, RR: 23
Reply 6, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1058 times:

The source completely obliterates any sense of credbility. Jesse Helms is a paranoid nut and is well know all over the world. Sort of McCarthyism reincarnated.

I find it interesting that the US is lobbying for reform of the UN while they themselves do not pay their full dues to that organization.


User currently offlineN766AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1054 times:

>Why should American soldiers be held responsible under International Criminal Justice laws? Serbian soldiers are. Aussie soldiers are. Japanese soldiers are. Why not American?

Because American soldiers have Constitutional rights that Aussie soldiers don't. Our soldiers DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES answer to ANY court except an American court. EVER. That is what this "international court" would do. This court, established by an unelected body, would prosecute OUR soldiers under non-American laws.

I favor the IMMEDIATE withdrawl from the United Nations, as well as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NAFTA, WTO, IMF, etc. The UN is dangerous. The UN is unConstitutional. We must terminate our membership.

Our funding, our troops, and our time must not be given away to this un-elected body.
Our troops MUST NOT report to a foreign command. Our tax dollars MUST NOT be given to an organization which the tax-payers have absolutely no voice in. It is purely unConstitutional and plainly morally wrong.


User currently offlineTWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1050 times:

"Morally wrong"????

Give me a mother-fucking break.


I couldn't disagree more. People like you make me embarrassed to be American.



America is a country on this planet just like the 200+ other sovereign countries. We are a citizen of planet Earth and must act like one. Our citizens are bound to international law just like every other citizen of this planet.



Get your fucking head out of the sand. We have absolutely no right whatsoever to expect countries to obey international law and submit their citizens for trial in international court if we don't play by the same rules.


The world is bigger than our borders.


Helms makes me want to barf.


Xenophobia. Look it up in the dictionary.



An unexamined life isn't worth living.
User currently offlineBrissie_lions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1050 times:

Thanks for saying what I wanted to say, but couldn't for the "xenophobic" fear of being branded with a certain label. 

Cheers

Scotty


User currently offlineN766AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1048 times:

>Our citizens are bound to international law just like every other citizen of this planet.

No, we aren't.

>We have absolutely no right whatsoever to expect countries to obey international law and submit their citizens for trial in international court if we don't play by the same rules.

I DON'T EXPECT other nations to sign on to this rediculous international court. I WOULD NEVER give up my liberty and Constitutional rights by standing before this court. It is a slap in the face of EVERY person who died protecting this nation, our liberty, and our Constitution.


User currently offlineN766AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1043 times:

I guess I should explain myself. This is what I believe:

I say "No!" to the so-called New World Order and "Yes!" to the national sovereignty of the United States of America.

I oppose any alliance or participation in any treaty or agreement which compromises our independence as a nation, or which subverts our Constitution by improperly committing us to participation in foreign conflicts or intervention in foreign wars.

I join with other American patriots to oppose the surrender of American liberty and autonomy to any form of world government or any organization which works toward that end.

I call upon the president and Congress to terminate the membership of the United States in the United Nations and its subsidiary and affiliated organizations.

All treaties must be subordinate to the Constitution because the Constitution is the only instrument which empowers and limits the federal government.

No treaties (even if signed by the president or one of his agents on behalf of the United States) lacking the Constitutionally required two-thirds concurrence of the Senate may be implemented, in whole or part, by Congressional act, Executive Order, or bureaucratic regulation(s).

The Framers assumed, as a matter of course, that treaties would be subordinate. In fact, the stated reason for the particular wording of the Constitution concerning treaties was to make sure pre-existing treaties, including post-Revolutionary peace treaties concluded after the Articles of Confederation, would remain valid.

Thomas Jefferson, addressing the question directly, had this to say: "...surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way."



User currently offlineMx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1040 times:

N766AS,

Given that you are incredibly intelligent. What do you think would happen if the rest of the world boycotted the USA on a continual basis for the next 12 months?

Explain.


mb


User currently offlineN766AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1035 times:

Well, the rest of the world wouldn't boycott the USA.

Why?

First, too many rely on the USA. Where would much of the world be today without the USA? Not very far... Now, don't take this as without the USA, everyone would die or something, but what I said above is the truth.

Second, too many other nations stand righteously with the United States. These nations would not boycott the USA.

So, if the world boycotted the USA (minus these nations), sure we'd have a hard time, but we would survive and eventually prevail. If there was any attempt to boycott the United States (for whatever radical liberal reason), it would never work.



The offspring of the wicked will be cut off; the righteous will inherit the land and dwell in it forever.


User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4781 posts, RR: 23
Reply 14, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1036 times:

N766AS, you need to hire a new script writer. You never surprise me anymore.

Unless you are prepared to leave this planet, your country should be expected to participate in well-meaning global lawmaking. Being the "best" or "richest" doesn't abdicate any responsibilities.


User currently offlineN766AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1030 times:

Script writer? What...?

>your country should be expected to participate in well-meaning global lawmaking

Why? I see no reason why we should be forced to contradict our Constitution. No one has that right.


User currently offline9A-CRO From Croatia, joined Jun 2000, 1574 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1023 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

why do you americans (N766AS and company) always have to hide behind the constituion
you treat it as a kind of holy scripture - we won't give us soldiers to international court - it s forbidden by constitiuion - then write anotehr constittion - which is suitable for 21st century -
so if some american soldier killed 1000 vietnamese it is alright because it is his constitutional right to defend US from people which wanted to have tehir own country thousands of kilometers away from USA

and then you really wonder how many people dislike USA - with attiutde as N766AS has - it isn't so hard



When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward...
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 17, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1027 times:

Well, apparently I am going to be one of the few people who is going to say that that speech is right on the money.

Please don't confuse a nations desire to retain national sovereignty with the average Americans ability to make a complete ass of themselves when overseas.

A lot of people died to give their decendents the rights to set their own rules, to live in their own free countries, not to be led by vague commitee's who don't live in the same areas or have the same issues that the people that live there do.

It isn't a bad thing that the U.S. seems to value that higher then other countries and is not easily compelled to give it all up. But is exactly part of what is being asked.

I will admit that I am a big states rights fan and not a fan of the U.N. in the role of an International "Leader". It's role should be that of an international "Mediator".

The problem is that to eliminate the problems that my folks have with the U.S. federal government's management almost are going to require using the regulations of the U.N. and international help. The strongest arguements for Nationhood(Is that a word???) comes from Article 73 of the U.N. Charter.

As an believer in Alaskan Independence I still haven't been able to figure out how to reconcile that. It still reaks of signing a deal with the devil to me.




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineMx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1022 times:

N766AS,

"""The offspring of the wicked will be cut off; the righteous will inherit the land and dwell in it forever."""


Oh my, the great pestilence is coming... Ooops sorry it's here.

"And the good kind goat did suckle the demeted and moronic coyote, the great kindress of flying reptile did see the two at each other, and asked "Would you like fries with that?""

mb


User currently offlineN766AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1009 times:

>why do you americans (N766AS and company) always have to hide behind the constituion
you treat it as a kind of holy scripture

Its not hiding behind the Constitution, it is upholding the law of the United States of America.
And its almost holy scripture   hehe...

>then write anotehr constittion - which is suitable for 21st century

That is absurd.

I take it you don't know much about how American government works, huh?


User currently offline9A-CRO From Croatia, joined Jun 2000, 1574 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1000 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

you are hiding behind the constitution - your soldiers do terrible crimes while abroad and then hide from rigthful prosecution behind constitution


When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward...
User currently offline9A-CRO From Croatia, joined Jun 2000, 1574 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 996 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

all armie - including US,UK, Serbian, Indonesian, Croatian, Bosnian.......
will make war crimes - this is ineveitable side effect of war - but fair trial in which person responsible for war crimes will not get freed because of some stupid law is only possible through international court - no governmnet will proscute its own soldiers if it doesn't have to



When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward...
User currently offline9A-CRO From Croatia, joined Jun 2000, 1574 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 994 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

and another thing - N766AS you mentioned sovereignity - that is right of all nations - and because it is right of all nations - your sovereignity stops where other country begins - so freeing people who commited crimes in other countries is vilation of that country sovereignity


When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward...
User currently offlineN766AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 987 times:

>N766AS you mentioned sovereignity - that is right of all nations - and because it is right of all nations - your sovereignity stops where other country begins - so freeing people who commited crimes in other countries is vilation of that country sovereignity

OK. Lets explore American sovereignty.

In every society, there is always one sovereign and there are always three choices:
Man's Reason (man does what is right in his own eyes)
The State (the State is the ultimate decision maker)
God

As stated by our framers of the Declaration and Constitution, our rights are a gift from God. Our liberty is endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.

Law is always the will of the sovereign. Thats why sovereignty is the issue...
Our Republican and Democratic parties believe in the sovereignty of the State, not the sovereignty of God. Our Libertarian party believes in the sovereignty of man's reason.

For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawmaker, the Lord is our king. Isaiah 33:22

So that is the basis for American sovereignty.

What is this claim about how our sovereignty STOPS??? I'm not comprehending that...

>you are hiding behind the constitution - your soldiers do terrible crimes while abroad and then hide from rigthful prosecution behind constitution

One question, answer yes or no:
Have you EVER even read the Constitution of the United States of America?

Uhhh huh...thats what I thought. Try reading it.

Our soldiers, because of their Constitutional rights, do not have to answer to an international court. I have even heard liberals talking about this and they are opposed to this. I have no idea what was going through Clinton's head when he gave this to the Senate because he KNEW it wouldn't pass.

Four more days....four more days...just four more days...


User currently offlineMx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 974 times:

N766AS:

"""Four more days....four more days...just four more days..."""

What on earth are you going on about? You going on a trip or something?

Cheers,

mb


25 N766AS : Oh- I guess you wouldn't know, being Australian and all... January 20 is the day the old POTUS gets kicked out of the White House. I can't wait. But B
26 Post contains images DeltaRNOmd-80 : "But Bushie won't be moving in until next week because he has to fumigate the building and that'll take quite a while." Don't forget they have to sham
27 N766AS : hahahahaha.... so very true.
28 Brissie_lions : N766AS Because American soldiers have Constitutional rights that Aussie soldiers don't. Our soldiers DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES answer to ANY cour
29 N766AS : Brissie, Members of the American armed forces are held responsible under the UCMJ- Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ says that if you are in
30 Brissie_lions : Well you may be interested to know that 3 American sailors were put up on charges of raping a 17 year old girl here in Perth a couple of years ago, wh
31 9A-CRO : good post Brissie... N766AS - if you want your soldierss to be prosecuted by US authorites - they should stay in USA if they go to antoher country the
32 IndianGuy : Ok to all my American friends out there: your point is accepted. About your sovereignty blah blah blah. But then why does it cause such an itch in you
33 IndianGuy : Another thing. Who decides what constitutes a fair trial? The American Courts? PUHLEEZE!
34 9A-CRO : What is this claim about how our sovereignty STOPS??? I'm not comprehending that.. do I have to draw it for you??? if american goes to another countr
35 Mbmbos : I just want to point out to the members of this forum that the opinions of folks like N766AS and DG-Pilot do not necessarily represent a majority Amer
36 N766AS : >Chapter 47 UCMJ, Sub-chapter IV, Section 803, Article 3a means absolutely diddly-squat to me as an Australian, as it does to most other people Well,
37 TWFirst : Ummmm no it doesn't. If American troops are on a sovereign country's soil or in international waters, then the sovereign country's laws or internation
38 Brissie_lions : N766AS If an American soldier is ONLY bound by the American constitution, then please explain to me why 3 American sailors were charged under the West
39 Ctbarnes : If someone would actually like to educate themselves on the issue, I will continue a proper debate of them. But I am not going to try (to no avail) to
40 Mx5_boy : Mbmbos, What a pleasant reminder that the ridiculous rants of the feeble minded on this forum are not truly representative... N776AS, Scotty got you a
41 Post contains images N766AS : >Ummmm no it doesn't Have you even read the UCMJ? Uhhh huh...thats what I thought. >then please explain to me why 3 American sailors were charged unde
42 Post contains links Brissie_lions : N766AS Go and read these articles will you. And you will still try to tell me that Defence Force personnel are not bound by the laws of the country in
43 TWFirst : Logic is not one of your attributes, is it? How in the hell can you possibly argue that every other sovereign political entity on this planet is bound
44 Post contains links Brissie_lions : Here is some more stories for you http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,1611988%255E1702,00.html Another case of an American soldier in Perth be
45 TWFirst : Sorry Brissie, I was posting my post while you were posting yours. Our posts make the same points. Sorry for the repetition folks.
46 Raddog2 : Dude, N766AS, give it up already. You are clearly wrong, so maybe you shouldn't be calling other people ignorant. If US troops are indicted by local a
47 TWFirst : And another thing N766AS, one can READ anything. The real issue here is whether one UNDERSTANDS what one is reading. You clearly do not.
48 DeltaRNOmd-80 : N766AS must be saying something right, if it takes all you liberals to try and prove him wrong.
49 Raddog2 : Yeah, that's brilliant logic DeltaRNOmd-80. It's not like it's a matter of opinion. Either US troops are subject to foreign jurisdiction or they're no
50 Post contains images TWFirst : OH JESUS. Another beautiful example of teen wisdom. So, trying to correct someone who insists on spewing his misinterpretation of who has jurisdiction
51 Ctbarnes : These counter-arguments you are using against me are based on what? Your own thoughts about the issue? I am sorry, but your thoughts are as irrelevant
52 Post contains images Brissie_lions : Charles I hope you don't mind me saying so, but I am pissing myself laughing at the moment. I must say I haven't read something as funny as what you h
53 Post contains images N766AS : >And NOWHERE in it, does it say that you are NOT bound by another country's laws when you are in their country. Well, to tell you the truth, I referre
54 Ctbarnes : LOL... I rest my case. Charles, SJ
55 DeltaRNOmd-80 : TWFirst- Nah, I dont think I will dye my hair for a while, I will let it grow out. I heard dying your hair is popular in the queer community, and that
56 CPDC10-30 : Sorry, Brissie but I have to defend N766AS on this one. Its not just the US that has its soldiers court-martialed in their home country if they commit
57 Raddog2 : "I don't parrot anything from the internet- if you'd notice, I was citing LAW" Do you know what UCMJ Section 803 Article 3a that you refer to actually
58 CPDC10-30 : I heard dying your hair is popular in the queer community, and that is one association I definitly do NOT want! You maturity is very impressive. Hmmm
59 Post contains images N766AS : Raddog2, is that what you are claiming that messy jumble of words in 818 3a says?! I'll read it again. I remember having great difficulty with it the
60 9A-CRO : first of all I apologize to all americans if I generalized that all of them have same ideas as some extreme right-wingers here N766AS - I am very sorr
61 Post contains images Airsicknessbag : Hi everybody, please let me cast some remarks concerning a) extradition I think it´s perfectly OK to let your constitution say "our nationals won´t
62 L-188 : Ok....I haven't commented on this one for a while. But I can already tell there are a lot of people here that don't have any clue about military law o
63 Post contains images N766AS : >N766AS - I am very sorry, but it seems that you are ignorant one here yes I didn't read US constitiution and I won't because I don't care and have mu
64 L-188 : Yeah I was wondering how we got over this direction too...... Anyway piped back in because I wanted to point something else out too. I belive that sim
65 9A-CRO : N766AS - first of all - my opinion that crimes done by foreign citizens should be prosecuted in country where the crime is commited applies to citizen
66 9A-CRO : N766AS - I think that is sbout time that two of us drop the war axe - I apologize if I evre insulted you before and I hope that we can continue the de
67 9A-CRO : just to make one thing clear if there is bilateral agreement about prosecution of crimess commited by foreign troops this agreement should be applied
68 DeltaRNOmd-80 : hy CPDC10, if you read my post, you wouldn't have made such a dumb comeback. I said "I heard dying your hair is popular in the queer community", that
69 N766AS : I somewhat understand it, but I was getting a bit angered (maybe wrongly) because it seemed to me that you were debating what the US Constitution says
70 Brissie_lions : If I remember correctly (and believe me, I do!) I was the only one doing ANY research AT ALL up until now. Incorrect. These facts are ones which I hav
71 N766AS : >Incorrect. These facts are ones which I have known about for many years. Just goes with being 27 and having attended university I suppose. You seem t
72 Post contains images 9A-CRO : since this post was about US leaving the UN I will now comment on that (actually on any country to leave the UN) I won't deny that right if it is cons
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Do You Think Of This Commercial? posted Wed Dec 6 2006 03:09:43 by Jetjack74
What Do You Think Of Sonic? posted Sat Oct 28 2006 16:31:47 by N231YE
The Rolling Stones - What Do You Think Of Them? posted Mon Jul 24 2006 01:51:21 by Sabena332
What Do You Think Of The Da Vinci Code? posted Fri Jul 21 2006 15:56:46 by DIJKKIJK
Evita Peron: What Do You Think Of Her? posted Thu Jun 15 2006 15:55:17 by MaverickM11
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: What Do You Think? posted Thu May 25 2006 12:32:34 by DIJKKIJK
What Do You Think About Identity Theft Protection? posted Fri May 12 2006 01:05:10 by Air380
Ted Nugent: What Do You Think Of Him? posted Tue Apr 18 2006 20:03:48 by AerospaceFan
American Inventor - What Do You Think? posted Fri Mar 24 2006 22:07:52 by MGA
What Do You Think Of Latin American Music Stars? posted Wed Mar 15 2006 22:52:10 by RootsAir