will Victoria be banned in China?

[unmerged(4277)]

Fine, be as sarcastic as you like.

Fact remains, this contention:



has been challenged and you have not yet provided any refutation.

I will admit that the United States does not feel the pressure of the UN that most nations in the world feel. However, this is a situation that, more than likely, will not last. As it is right now, we are the most powerful nation the world has ever seen militarily and economically. So was Britain at one time. So was China. Because of that, we can throw our weight around and get our way. Things change, though. IF the UN is around in the future, we will have to bow to the pressure more and more.

However, this cannot be said for probably 180 of the more than 190 recognized nations in the world. Those people, such as Iraq in my earlier example, are subjected to the will of the world's other nations. The Security Council can pass BINDING resolutions. Therefore, other nation's citizens (such as Iraq or Israel if we didn't back them) are subject to the legislative authority of the United Nations. They never agreed to this situation. They didn't agree to a social compact that would force them to buy their food directly from Saddam because his illegitimate government decided to invade a small nation that happened to be very important to the United States.

They ARE subject to a legislative body outside of their nation. This is not liberty. Of course, pre-Saddam they didn't have liberty anyway because he was a tyrant, but hopefully you'll get my point. And, before we even go into it, the US-led government in there right now doesn't give them liberty either. The Iraqis will not have liberty until they have voted on their own constitution and elected their own officials.

 

[unmerged(4277)]

By the way, I like your quote. lol
I'd rather be warm for the night than the rest of my life if given that choice.

 

[Raen]

By the way, I like your quote. lol
I'd rather be warm for the night than the rest of my life if given that choice.

Thanks Wish I could claim the credit for it, but I saw it somewhere...and my sense of humor does incline towards the black.

 

[unmerged(4277)]

Hey, that's the best place for your sense of humor to incline.

 

[Raen]

I will admit that the United States does not feel the pressure of the UN that most nations in the world feel. However, this is a situation that, more than likely, will not last. As it is right now, we are the most powerful nation the world has ever seen militarily and economically. So was Britain at one time. So was China. Because of that, we can throw our weight around and get our way. Things change, though. IF the UN is around in the future, we will have to bow to the pressure more and more.

Where we differ, I suppose, is that I don't see that as bad of necessity, though it certainly could be.

However, this cannot be said for probably 180 of the more than 190 recognized nations in the world. Those people, such as Iraq in my earlier example, are subjected to the will of the world's other nations. The Security Council can pass BINDING resolutions. Therefore, other nation's citizens (such as Iraq or Israel if we didn't back them) are subject to the legislative authority of the United Nations. They never agreed to this situation. They didn't agree to a social compact that would force them to buy their food directly from Saddam because his illegitimate government decided to invade a small nation that happened to be very important to the United States.

Your original source was Locke. I think Locke might agree that Hussein's government was a FAR greater travesty against the rightness of things than any U.N. resolution.

No offense, but I find it interesting that you have to cite Iraq to support your argument.

 

[unmerged(14386)]

"Of course our representative to the UN is selected by our elected officials so by that logic you should not believe in subjecting yourself or your nation to the rulings of the Supreme Court either."

The Supreme Court is not an Internation Body. If you would please re-read my post, you will note that I state "unelected international body". That said...I have my own reservastions about my nations unelected judicial system....(recent events have caused me to raise and eyebrow or two)
------------------------------------------------
"Libya as the chair of the Commission on Human Rights...as far as I know those positoins rotate and the chair merely heads the meetings and has no real power...every country will have that postion at one point or another. Seems to me you think the rule on rotating chairs and rotating positions in the commisions and councils is a bad thing...if so what alternative do you propose?"

I proposed no alternative....merely sought to make a point. It simply makes about as much sense as Andrew Jackson being appointed as the head of International Native-American Relations or David Duke as head of the NAACP.

------------------------------------------------

"And finally how on earth is the United States subject to the UN? LOL they cant do a damn thing without our permission.Anyway the UN isn't a governing agency it is mearly a place for nations to police the international scene and work together when they see fit, it is a tool of international cooperation and nothing more. So please explain to me how we could ever be subject to the UN?"

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Kyoto)?

Granted, the US could and did largely ignore this and other measures. But once again...I would ask that you reread what my post was saying...I did not say that Koffi Annan is dictating American policy. I stated that I do not believe in subjecting my nation to the (if you wish to call the countless policy decisions that the UN has passed recomendations) recomendations of a foreign body...even if my nation is represented in it. My point was simply that the UN is taking a ever larger role than it used to. Things such as internet regulation (yes...this has been discussed), international weapons ban (i.e. limiting personal weapons ownership to nothing more than a Swiss army knife), the ICC, the Global Tax Plan, (In Copenhagen, global taxes that would help finance the international body were proposed; taxes that could..it has been suggested, be used to creat and support an indpendent UN army for enforcment purposes.) a treaty that would declare 50 percent of all the land in every state as wilderness, "Convention on Forest Principles" (which would effectively allow the UN to control every nations forests) "Habitat II" (which seeks that all citizens will be trained to think of "ecology, or the diverse systems of earth's biosphere, as the basis" for every human activity).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Now as I have said, the US has the option..and has more than once exercized it, to not participate in any of these. I do believe, however, that it should be realized that the UN is not simply a debating society. And if a UN with an independant army for enforcement does not worry ever person of every nation who wants to retain soverignty...than I can think of few things that would.

Also...Josh makes some very excellent points in that, if the UN continues at its present growth...and the US takes a nasty turn downwards.....I do not see it out of the realm of possibility that the US would find itself (and much if not most of the world) subject to the UN as Iraq and others have been.

Regards,

 

[unmerged(4277)]

Your original source was Locke. I think Locke might agree that Hussein's government was a FAR greater travesty against the rightness of things than any U.N. resolution.

No offense, but I find it interesting that you have to cite Iraq to support your argument.

I believe that you're correct. If given a choice between a tyrant and an international body like the UN, I think Locke might pick the UN. However, even better than that, he would tell the people to rise up and create a new government. Of course, Locke didn't live in an era that allowed for the terrorism of civilian populations like the 21st Century does.

I picked Iraq (I could have just as easily gone with Israel and Palestine) because it's something everyone is familiar with right now. Plus, I've read a lot of books about it in the last two years. lol

 

[McNaughton]

I think there is a lot of unrealistic fear of the UN. A lot of stuff is subjective. Take human rights. Each nation has a different definition of human rights. Some nations see capitol punishment as inhumane, others as a valid method of crime prevention. The US sees China as inhumane in regards to their treatment of prisoners, Canada sees the US as inhumane in regards to their treatment of prisoners, etc. Is any correct? According to Chinese, their system, according to the US, their system, etc., even there it is not a complete consensus.

Each nation believes it has the answers, and this is where the fear of the UN appears. One can uderstand the Iraqi's fear/hatred of the US, as they view America the same way as the US views the UN, as a foreign nation interfering in their sovereignty. Yet, the US does exactly the same thing that it says the UN does/will do, pretty hypocritical. Right or wrong, fear of losing sovereignty, even in the light of trying to transplant morality, is what we have here. Many nations are clinging on to outdated and backward thinking because of this fear of a loss of sovereignty.

Is losing sovereignty such a bad thing? Looking at the horrid state of most nations (yes, including wester nations), maybe it is time for an international organization to take control. The course of history is leading more and more to centralized government, and the UN is probably the next logical step in social development. Nations are just too xenophobic, short term thinking, self destructive, and aggressive to eachother's neighbours.

 

[unmerged(4277)]

Just as another point to bring up, and I think Frasco might agree with me on this:
I believe that Locke probably would allow for the existance of extra-national entities in certain situations. As an example, the people of the UK were allowed to vote on quite a few issues with the EU. (such as using the Euro) In those situations, the people are agreeing to enter an extra-national organization and their being subject to the EU's legislative decisions would still allow them the same liberty that they enjoyed before. Most nations in the world were never allowed to vote on their entrance to the UN, though. (Many used it to gain diplomatic recognition quickly.) And when the UN tries to do stuff like tell us how much CO2 we can emit into the atmosphere or tries to tell Brits that they can't spank their children, the people don't get to vote on those legislative acts either. If they were allowed to vote on it, again, I think it would be an entirely different issue.

 

[McNaughton]

I believe that you're correct. If given a choice between a tyrant and an international body like the UN, I think Locke might pick the UN. However, even better than that, he would tell the people to rise up and create a new government. Of course, Locke didn't live in an era that allowed for the terrorism of civilian populations like the 21st Century does.

I picked Iraq (I could have just as easily gone with Israel and Palestine) because it's something everyone is familiar with right now. Plus, I've read a lot of books about it in the last two years. lol

Locke also believed that land was wasted unless it was being developed for human use. However, today we know that without pristine wilderness we are eliminating pollution filters, as well as multiple possible natural cures. I think that Locke is outdated, and not in touch with the present situation where population has gotten out of control, and national government reaching its evolutionary limit.

 

[unmerged(4277)]

Locke also believed that land was wasted unless it was being developed for human use. However, today we know that without pristine wilderness we are eliminating pollution filters, as well as multiple possible natural cures. I think that Locke is outdated, and not in touch with the present situation where population has gotten out of control, and national government reaching its evolutionary limit.

Locke said it was not owned unless someone was doing work on it. (putting their labor into it) Big difference. Even in places that we've set aside to remain in their "natural" state, I'd say that the park rangers are doing TONS of work at those parks. Even in places like Yellowstone where they try to let nature run its course in as many cases as necessary, they're doing a lot of work.

 

[Raen]

I think there is a lot of unrealistic fear of the UN. A lot of stuff is subjective. Take human rights. Each nation has a different definition of human rights. Some nations see capitol punishment as inhumane, others as a valid method of crime prevention. The US sees China as inhumane in regards to their treatment of prisoners, Canada sees the US as inhumane in regards to their treatment of prisoners, etc. Is any correct? According to Chinese, their system, according to the US, their system, etc., even there it is not a complete consensus.

Each nation believes it has the answers, and this is where the fear of the UN appears. One can uderstand the Iraqi's fear/hatred of the US, as they view America the same way as the US views the UN, as a foreign nation interfering in their sovereignty. Yet, the US does exactly the same thing that it says the UN does/will do, pretty hypocritical. Right or wrong, fear of losing sovereignty, even in the light of trying to transplant morality, is what we have here. Many nations are clinging on to outdated and backward thinking because of this fear of a loss of sovereignty.

Is losing sovereignty such a bad thing? Looking at the horrid state of most nations (yes, including wester nations), maybe it is time for an international organization to take control. The course of history is leading more and more to centralized government, and the UN is probably the next logical step in social development. Nations are just too xenophobic, short term thinking, self destructive, and aggressive to eachother's neighbours.

McNaughton, I agree with you.

In my opinion, the ultimate destiny of the world is to unite under one government.

U.S. conservatives, of course, disagree with this and want to establish little local principalities. I won't go into why right now

 

[unmerged(14386)]

I think there is a lot of unrealistic fear of the UN. A lot of stuff is subjective. Take human rights. Each nation has a different definition of human rights. Some nations see capitol punishment as inhumane, others as a valid method of crime prevention. The US sees China as inhumane in regards to their treatment of prisoners, Canada sees the US as inhumane in regards to their treatment of prisoners, etc. Is any correct? According to Chinese, their system, according to the US, their system, etc., even there it is not a complete consensus.

Each nation believes it has the answers, and this is where the fear of the UN appears. One can uderstand the Iraqi's fear/hatred of the US, as they view America the same way as the US views the UN, as a foreign nation interfering in their sovereignty. Yet, the US does exactly the same thing that it says the UN does/will do, pretty hypocritical. Right or wrong, fear of losing sovereignty, even in the light of trying to transplant morality, is what we have here. Many nations are clinging on to outdated and backward thinking because of this fear of a loss of sovereignty.

Is losing sovereignty such a bad thing? Looking at the horrid state of most nations (yes, including wester nations), maybe it is time for an international organization to take control. The course of history is leading more and more to centralized government, and the UN is probably the next logical step in social development. Nations are just too xenophobic, short term thinking, self destructive, and aggressive to eachother's neighbours.

And here we witness the fundamental dissagrement. Some view STRONGER centralized government as a possitive; others as a negative. We could all debate the pros and cons of both until we're blue in the face...I doubt anyone will change their mind. Be that as it may, if you have read my previous posts...you would understand why I do not view US action in Iraq as "hypocritical". In fact...it stand with exactly everything I have said- a nation must do what it feels is in its best interest. For Iraq, invading Kuwait and researching arms was in their best interest. For the US, not allowing Iraq to do so was in their best interest. For the UN, having greater power over the nations of the world is in its best interest. For the US and any other nation that choses not to be a European social welfare state (gasp! yes there are people who prefer to live without massive government intervention. The horror!) [further note: I am not critisizing the European system, merely stating that it is not every nations first choice], giving the UN more control is not in their interest.

Further more, when you suggest that the UN (or such an orgainization) should take a larger role in world governance, you assume one amazingly huge thing- that the entire world agrees with the political principals of the United Nations. I for one, do not.

Perhaps the "course of history" is moving toward centralized government. But I would say that is a judgement far to large to ever be made. Many scholars predicited, near the end of the 19th century, that radical socialism was where every nation was heading. 40 odd years later....it seamed as though rightist fascism would be the ruler of the world. Today, many suggest social democracy will soon be the defining principle in all nations. I say- it is naive to believe that, given the changes that have occured since the first orgainized city-state was founded, one can predict the course of world governent.

As far as the world united under one nation. Perhaps one day. But this will not happen in any of our lifes (barring a massive war). I simply do not see Syria, the US, Sweden, Russia, China and the Christmas Islands banning together under one flag any time soon. Each nation views the world so profoundly differently, it is all but inconceivable that they should unite.

But hey, 26,582 sci-fi movies cant be wrong!

Regards,

Regards,

 

[unmerged(4277)]

McNaughton, I agree with you.

In my opinion, the ultimate destiny of the world is to unite under one government.

U.S. conservatives, of course, disagree with this and want to establish little local principalities. I won't go into why right now

The Bible says the world will united under one government too. It's called the end of the world. Why do you think we're so afraid of the UN?

 

[unmerged(4277)]

Well said frasco!
I agree that the US has every right to intervene in Iraq if it's in our best interest as well. I can't for the life of me remember who said it right now, but someone said something to the effect of "Imagine if you knew your neighbor had a gun and was coming to kill you. Would you wait until he came over to your house to shoot at you before you took action? No. You'd go to his house and try and take his gun from him."
And even if the war was just for oil, so? It's in our nation's best intest to have tons of cheap oil. It's VITAL to our nation. I don't think it was for oil, though. (Though it may have had a little to do with it. lol)

 

[Raen]

The Bible says the world will united under one government too. It's called the end of the world. Why do you think we're so afraid of the UN?

But...the end of the world is when all you righteous folk are called up to heaven, right?

You're afraid of that?

 

[unmerged(14386)]

:rofl:

Well said frasco!
I agree that the US has every right to intervene in Iraq if it's in our best interest as well. I can't for the life of me remember who said it right now, but someone said something to the effect of "Imagine if you knew your neighbor had a gun and was coming to kill you. Would you wait until he came over to your house to shoot at you before you took action? No. You'd go to his house and try and take his gun from him."
And even if the war was just for oil, so? It's in our nation's best intest to have tons of cheap oil. It's VITAL to our nation. I don't think it was for oil, though. (Though it may have had a little to do with it. lol)

(looks around...sees a european come running- "THEY ADMITTED IT! THEY ADMITTED IT! IT WAS OIL!") :rofl:

Agreed, but want to clarify (so I dont have to spend 4 hours doing so later in a more complicated post)

THIS APPLIES TO ALL NATION- ALL ORGAINIZATIONS- ALL PEOPLE!

If France wants to launch an commando expedition to Brazil to rescue de Villepin's old girlfriend, they can. China wants to invade Taiwan, they can. Russia in Chechnya, they can. Sweden wants Norway's oil, the can. Soviets want missiles in Cuba, they can. And if every nation wants to react to these as the did/would, than they can. That is simply the way I see the world. Otherwise....you open yourself up to accusations of being "hypocritical", "biased", "judgemental", etc, etc. One cannot be truly "fair" even if they take each case, one at a time. Different nations/people simply see things differently.


But my main point is...so...ya....will Victoria: Empire Under the Sun be banned in China? maybe.

Regards,

 

[unmerged(4277)]

Way to tie it back into the original topic. lol
Victoria should be played in China. Then they can avoid losing Taiwan in the first place.

 

[unmerged(14386)]

Way to tie it back into the original topic. lol

I do what I can.

However, I cannot for the life of my believe that this is still open in the General Discussion forum, lol.

We started talking about a ban of a WW II war game and somehow ended up discussing the potential of Earth being united under the banner of one country. Hmm.... *Runs off to read a Russia W.C. AAR.* :rofl:

Well, I thank all for a riviting discussion but even us Yankee Imperialist Pigdog types nead our rest. So, for tonight, I shall bit farewell to my rightist and leftist forum companions alike.

Regards,

 

[unmerged(4277)]

I'm glad I'm a Texan.

I know that doesn't have to do with anything we were discussing. I just like to say it every once in a while.