Psh, that's totally ripped from This Land is My Land

I'm a philosophical anarchist.

I don't see why so many Americans think that America should be above the UN. If you ask me that sets a bad example for countries like Iraq to defy the UN as well.

I would prefer a president who was diplomatic to a president who just did whatever he wanted.

Maybe you didn't notice, but the problem with Iraq was that it already had defied the U.N., regardless of what we did or ever might have done.

Frankly, I'd prefer a President that does what needs to be done rather than appeasing dictators and daintly prancing around tough decisions.

VIVA LA REVOLUTION!

Fantastically fascist?

The problem with the UN is that they don't do anything. They just say "We're discussing it... it's in deliberation... the delegates are talking about it." Nothing happens.

The reason many Americans feel we are above the UN is the fact that the US is the single largest financial contributor, as well as the single largest source of military manpower, yet we still have to take orders from worthless, piss-ant little countries like France, because they happen to be on this council or that council. It's really not fair, seeing as the UN hardly helps the US, it's more that the US is helping the rest of the world through the UN. It's our money and our young men that are doing the work. We host the UN, pay for the UN, and give our soldiers to die for the UN, and get little to nothing in return.

I think the days of the UN are over, and that the US should just pay what it "owes" and get the hell out. Of course, this would put the US in a bad way with the rest of the world (even worse than it is now), so it won't happen.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
W
T
F
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

time to pull the plug on Fox News there kiddo.

]-[elle, I don't think I tell you I love you nearly enough. Hold me, sweet-cheeks.

Apparently I'm moderately Libertarian-Right (1.88, -2.21 on the political compass).

I'm way off this scale.

Yeah, 14 times. It said "screw you" to the UN. So the UN passed a resolution. Some compliance...then it said "screw you" again. So the UN passes one more resolution...rinse and repeat.

Finally the U.S. comes along and "enacts" the previous 14 resolutions. Hussein is now sitting on trial (although he should be thoroughly shot but that's my opinion). Now if we can only have our hands unbound and deal with al-Sadr's insurgants forthwith, we can get some stability growing in that nation. No, it won't be easy but not impossible.

As far as the poll goes, I believe it is only supposed to measure one's overall ideological leanings, a single axis on a graph. As was mentioned, libertarians can generally be found across the axis, as the span from libertiarian to authoritarian is another axis on a graph.

As for Bush, despite his claims to provide a solid, unwavering message, his politics are strewn from solidly Conservative (tax cuts), lightly Liberal(No child left behind), and all the way deep into Reactionary (to the far right of Conservative; Ignoring UN resolutions on Iraq, pulling US out of Kyoto Protocol). I recalled that during the 2000 presidential campaign, he promised he would not use the US's military might to build nations... And here we are with several hundred thousand troops in two different nations. Don't make an excuse using the subject of terrorism; 9/11, while it was a tragedy that hit into the hearts of all humanity, was really nothing too new. Al-Qaeda had been active against the US for years, and terrorism has been an issue even before 2001. Also, after Gore conceded the election to Bush in 2000, Bush vowed he would abolish the Electoral College, so that a debacle such as the 2000 election would never be repeated. Today, candidates are still worrying about which states they'll win because Bush has yet to keep his vow. To me, Bush might not be a solid far-right-wing person, but he is a "flip-flopper".

As I recall, Iraq hadn't been disobeying any UN resolutions since 1998. Then, President Bill Clinton ordered Operation Desert Fox to remind Sadaam, and the Iraqi leader agreed to go back to letting the UN in. in 2002, Bush did get Kudos for making another, more rigorous UN resolution, that would have sanctioned military action if Sadaam didn't comply. funny enough though, Sadaam was still complying with the UN when Bush moved troops into Iraq, thus making it the US that was not complying with the UN.

Before reading these posts, please remember that I am proud to be American (though today's politicians are trying to see to THAT), and not a European.

If nothing happens because of the UN, then how had it passed resultions on Sadaam Hussein, the last of which was being well complied with when Bush Invaded? Meethinks you're using the right-wing libertarian "bureacracy is bad" schtick.


I think you should actually try to learn how the UN works. France is a permanent member of the UN security council (the most powerful part of the UN, it can pass resolutions without the consent of the General Assembly), because it maintains a large military, and the world's fifth best nuclear arsenal. Also, despite much of the Bush team's attempts to alienate France, they are our long-standing allies since they loaned us the navy needed to defeat the British Empire and gain true independence.


Hmm? I don't think you know that it was the US that started the UN. Depsite your beliefs, the US is not all-powerful (though it is by far the most powerful single nation); it only controls 24% of the world economy, less than the EU's 27%. Only 4% of the world's citizens live in America. Across the UN, the burden is placed among different members according to how powerful they are; the US, spending half of the world's military money, should obviously be required to provide the most support for international efforts. Remember, for troops to be sent by the UN, the security council must vote, and a single "NO" from the US kills the agreement. The US agrees that many of the UN's actions would benefit the world order, thus ensuring the US's survival and dominance. Very few US troops (less than the currnt 1,002 in Iraq), in total, have died on UN peace-keeping missions.


That's an absurd opinion if I ever saw one. That kind of opinion would set up the true World War III, with the US against the rest of the world. The US would have no chance to win such a conflict (the US would be quickly nuked, while the rest of the world is too large to hit), and morally should not attempt such a thing.

Your hatred has blinded you to the fact that the US should be leading the world, not commanding or against it. That's why US flag code states that the US flag shoudl fly at the same level as the flags of other recognised nations, not above them, though the US flag should always be the first in a line of flags (first among equals).

I suppose such a response is easier than real discussion. Maybe when you're older you can defend your viewpoints rather than simply insult my intelligence.

Maybe you're too old too understand that unilateral action in a global community is not exactly sound foreign policy. This isnt the 1950s, the rest of the world isnt as dependent on the US as they used to be, other countries, including our allies, now see that they dont have to bow to every one of our wishes because they've been mostly freed of American hegemony by globalization. Europe doesnt need NATO anymore, America needs NATO.

Bush's idealism that everyone in the world should be held standard to his obviously supranational moral-code, while at the same time using the War-On-Terror card in order to invade another sovereign nation and replace the leader at his whim. The original reason was WMDs and Saddam's support of Al-Qaeda. Now the reasoning is the spread of liberty and the removal of a dictator. If Bush's foreign policy is about spreading liberty and removing dictators in the name of anti-terrorism, there's one about 90 miles south of Cuba.

Maybe when I'm older though, I'll see everything in black and white.

We don't need NATO any more nor the UN. NATO was created to combat the threat of the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War. Now that the Soviet Union has fizzled away in to my high school history textbook, I think NATO's job is done.

nottheking: I really doubt the world will collapse into the horrific WW3 scenario. You think Europe will send nukes our way just because we got sick and tired of being in the UN? If anything we'll get a nice middle finger from them.

But NATO obviously had use after 9/11, as it allowed Bush to have "instant" allies for the invasion of Afghanistan. Of course, Bush squandered his attempt there by keeping US presence to a minimum, thus allowing the bulk (and the head) of Al-Qaeda to slip away.


I'm not saying a scenario such as that would be either 100% certain or immediate, but it would have a greater than 50% chance of occuring were we to have a Bush-like president (Unilateral actions for the personal interests of his administration) for the 20 years after such a break from the UN.

Well, you're both wrong in that Bush is certainly not far right. Far right wingers don't do liberal things. Bush has passed many liberal bills and, coincidentally, has not vetoed a single bill either. If I had to place Bush on Page's poll I would say right or possibly between right and moderate. Although moderate is not really appropriate in the center as there is no political ideology to moderate. It is a lack of ideology and defined values that allow people to classify themselves as moderates. In reality most "moderates" are left of center, in my experience.



What unilateral actions has he taken for the personal interests of his administration?

You may be right there. But what about gathering together a coalition of 40 nations willing to support you regardless of a lack of official U.N. consent?

I do wish someone would explain why any action taken without French, German, and Russian support is unilateral.



There's a difference?

We removed the dictator. Now there's no more dealings with Al-Qaeda, and no more threat of WMD's being pumped out of Iraq. Funny how it all ties together.

As a neat side-effect, now a bunch of crazy crackpots are rushing into Iraq to continue their crusade against American forces. Hilarious! The more morons that get mowed down by U.S. Marines, the better, I say.



Let's hope so. Right now your cynicism is blinding you to the fact that evil exists and needs to be shot. Poor fella. Right now, all you've got to fight against are those who fight against evil. That must feel awkward.

But if you notice, the Coalition of the Willing are mostly countries dependent on US trade and the money gained from allowing the US to put military bases in their countries. (former Eastern-bloc countries who just joined NATO/EU and want to prove they can play with the big boys, even though the big boys of Europe have decided to sit it out.) Although, I do agree that the reason France, Germany, and Russia arent onboard the coalition is because they had vested-interests in Saddam remaining in power, mostly oil-contracts.

So!... I agree with you on some of your points, mainly these:



and of course Evil will prevail, because Good is just dumb.


I still disagree with you in regards to the reasons our troops were committed to Iraq. There's no direct correlation between the reasons we were given to invade and the reasons we're given now. If there was sufficient evidence to tout this as a strong correlation between them then the US Government would've done a much better public propaganda campaign. As it is right now, I'm still unconvinced with the reasoning behind the invasion.

Afghanistan, I'm alright with that because the Taliban was obviously collaborating with Al-Qaeda (note: we also had a stronger coalition in our mission to Afghanistan). If the US plays its cards right we can get Russia in on the coalition, but I'm also afraid that terrorism is going to be America's invading barbarians.

While we're on the topic of disobeying the U.N, what about ISRAEL!? Oh man, good thing we have veto power, or else we'd have to invade them too!

Israel disobeying the U.N. puts America in no danger. In fact, their anti-terrorist stance that so frequently angers the U.N. only serves to kill more terrorists that may somewhere along the line aid in the killing of Americans. Go Israel!



...So allies can only be legitmate allies if they aren't close trade partners?

You still haven't explained how our actions in the Iraq War were unilateral.

And don't take the Eastern Bloc countries so lightly. Remember that they spent the past few decades under the Soviet heel, and the vast majority consider it to be America (Reagan) who freed them. They are not only grateful, but are probably more willing to help us spread freedom now that they finally have theirs.

Also remember that it was Chirac who threatened these countries with exemption from the EU if they considered supporting us. Sucking up to America probably isn't the way to go if you wanna become more globally prominent.

I will agree with you that the propoganda machine on the homefront in defense of the war was pretty lackluster. This administration has a history of making decisions without clearly explaining the reasoning to the masses. For example, the troop redeployment plan is brilliant, especially in South Korea. Take some troops out, and push the others south of Seoul. Awesome diplomatic move, but undoubtedly the majority of Americans don't know why, and the administration will probably make no reason to explain why.



*cough* Given Russia's recent history on dealing with terrorist incidents, I think we want them as far away from us as possible...

Well, he also didn't cite any UN resolutions against Israel that we veto'd although he implies that we have. Being that I care less about the UN I will concede that it matters not to me whether or not he has citations.

Actually, I'm fairly certain we have vetoed a few U.N. resolutions that denounced Israel for being too mean to Hamas. I can't verify that without doing some research, however, and that's something that I don't feel like spending energy on right now. Since BV made the original allegation, I'll let him support it.