1 year after 9/11: The US and its theatrics.

[Lao Tzu]

Fuck the UN.

After 9/11, did the UN get together and find out HOW to protect America and bring these jerks to justice?

NOPE.

They just wiped their hands clean of it, and didn't want to get involved. No other country wanted to get involved cuz they were scared shitless. America was on it's OWN to DEFEND and OBTAIN JUSTICE.

So fuck the UN when they now start acting all power hungry that we need THEIR permission. I didn't see soldiers from ALL un nations in Afghanistan. Hell no. Sending food packets from the "UN" is such a fucking copout. My grandmother could've done that. We don't need permission to do squat.

-= nav =-

Nope. We have a multinational anti-terrorism coalition. 37 countries joined in. UK SAS fighters went into afghanistan just like USA delta fighters did. The world came to help us, they just don't agree with the Iraq issue. Other than pass resolutions i don't know if the U.N. did anything other than talk. However, they provided a medium for the anti-terror coaltion to form.

.

 

[cockdezl]

Read the book 'Death by Government' by R.J. Rummel. He is a professor who set out to see how many people were killed by their own government in the 20th century (he came up with 169 million). He also came to teh conclusion that democracy, government accountability & diffused responsiblity are all necessary to prevent government repression.

to quote:

"Power kills; absolute Power kills absolutely. . . . The more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite, and the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects. The more constrained the power of governments, the more power is diffused, checked, and balanced, the less it will aggress on others and commit democide. At the extremes of Power, totalitarian communists governments slaughter their people by the tens of millions; in contrast, many democracies can barely bring themselves to execute even serial murderers."

Mr. Rummel's premise supports Constitutional Federalism that was the foundation of the US and the philosophy of its early members.

The UN has always been a hotbed of communist ideology and activists: Hiss, Thant, Hammerskjold, etc.

I bet you live in america, or Europe, am i right? i also bet you think 'government repression' is being given a $50 fine for smoking marijuana or being given a speeding ticket. Its easy to complain about the evils of the U.N. 'diffusing responsibility' or 'assaulting national soveriginity' when its the other guy who always gets his ass kicked. If the UN become toooooo PC or repressive, it should be abolished. However, right now they are working to maintain order (feel free to disprove this statement, whoever hates the UN).

Actually I believe that small infractions on my rights are the beginnings of larger infringements. Childhood morals are applicable to adults: "a stitch in time saves nine". The duty of citizens is to monitor those in power to prevent usurpations of power, no matter how small, since it generally starts small.

Because others in the world have it worse than I, does not mean that I am not morally obliged to try and change my situation, no matter how relatively minor it may be in the scheme of the world. Are we to allow ourselves to become as oppressed as the majority of the world, before we can feel OK to change things?

There are no outright statements by the UN that make the assertion that they wish to "crush us under there oppressive heel", few dictators even make that open mistake. I am diametrically opposed to the UN's philosophy on "rights", which is blatantly socialist/communist and their acceptance of despicable member states who are known violators of human rights. I do not wish to have Sudan, China, Zimbabwe, etc. having a say so in my governmental affairs and personal freedoms.

Since I favor Natural Law and the concept of "rights of man", not human rights, I cannot accept organizations which believe that they control and dispense "rights".

Article 29, Section 3:
"These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

Your "human rights" are subject to UN discretion.

 

[Lao Tzu]

1. Mr. Rummel's premise supports Constitutional Federalism that was the foundation of the US and the philosophy of its early members.

The UN has always been a hotbed of communist ideology and activists: Hiss, Thant, Hammerskjold, etc.



2. Actually I believe that small infractions on my rights are the beginnings of larger infringements. Childhood morals are applicable to adults: "a stitch in time saves nine". The duty of citizens is to monitor those in power to prevent usurpations of power, no matter how small, since it generally starts small.

3. Because others in the world have it worse than I, does not mean that I am not morally obliged to try and change my situation, no matter how relatively minor it may be in the scheme of the world. Are we to allow ourselves to become as oppressed as the majority of the world, before we can feel OK to change things?

4. There are no outright statements by the UN that make the assertion that they wish to "crush us under there oppressive heel", few dictators even make that open mistake. I am diametrically opposed to the UN's philosophy on "rights", which is blatantly socialist/communist and their acceptance of despicable member states who are known violators of human rights. I do not wish to have Sudan, China, Zimbabwe, etc. having a say so in my governmental affairs and personal freedoms.

5. Since I favor Natural Law and the concept of "rights of man", not human rights, I cannot accept organizations which believe that they control and dispense "rights".

6. Article 29, Section 3:
"These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

Your "human rights" are subject to UN discretion.

1. Yes it is/has been socialistic in nature. However, i am not afraid of communism, socialism, libertarianism or capitalism. I am afraid of tyranny, gross poverty & destruction, all of which the U.N. appears to be trying to overcome. I don't really care on a personal level about people in 3rd world countries, but i'd rather live in a world where people that really do care have a medium to do something about it.

2. Isn't that what the U.N. is trying to do, trying to make governments accountable with humanitarian aid programs, a general assembly, peacekeepers & sanctions? when a government isn't held accountable for its actions, it becomes corrupt. If a senator can pass an evil law, and the worst thing that happens is it becomes 'unconstitutional' and gets struck down there is no real pressure to not pass the law. An average american will be thrown in jail for doing something unconstitutional. One mans national soverignity is another man's checks & balances of power.

3. wtf? i don't think i've ever said that, if it appears i have then i meant something different. I can see your point though.

4. Hmmm. i don't know how to respond to that. Where does this anti-UN xenophobia come from? I wouldn't want the human rights commission actually responsible for human rights, they are corrupted. However, i've never supported the UN because they try to forcefeed people a blanket definition of 'rights', i support them because they provide social development & judicial protection to those that request it.

5. Understandable. But what is wrong with UN organizations that attempt to provide social development to poor countries or attempt to help people obtain protection from tyranny?

6. If the UN becomes incompetent, PC or evil then it should be abolished or reformed. However, as far as i can tell the un declaration of human rights (where you got article 29) is an attempt to provide individuals who want rights but can't obtain them a method of doing so.