My opposition to that is this...that if you kept going with that story about Spain, you would find that the same thing would happen that happened in the United States. If someone is Spain was blocking traffic, and an officer told them to move, and they didn't do you really think the officer would do nothing in response? I don't think he/she would just say, "Please move....ok...umm...Please....Please." He/she would eventually do something to make sure that person moved. Either w/ force or by arrest. People have freedom of speech here. They can speak their mind. Whether or not people agree w/ them is another issue. Many actors and actresses have spoke against the war. There have been many protests. There is freedom of speech here.

quote:

---

"...And so we go to war, the United States, Britain and Australia - alone.... alone? So be it. If... troops are received in Basra by surrendering Iraqi soldiers, and by Iraqi civilians cheering their liberators, they say all the rest will be forgotten. We shall soon know."

---

It's my personal sentiment that, at least in public media, the "rest" is quickly being forgone for cover photos of American soldiers pulling down statues of Saddam or sitting in one of his royal palaces. No matter how much Rumsfield complains that the media's focusing too much on the looting and violence in Iraq and not on the "freedom of an oppressed people", I still feel that the voices of peace activists, anti-war groups, and protesters aren't being heard as much as they should.
A friend from Germany recently said to me:
You know, I think all these arrests are odd. There have been thousands of people arrested in San Francisco alone lately for blocking traffic. If you did that in Germany the police would just tell you to go home and wait until you did. It's funny that in the United States you can say what you want and give your opinion - only you get arrested!!
A woman from Spain whom I met on a train told me that in the U.S. we don't speak our minds as much as the Spanish do because "our police shut us up". I was initially shocked - Oakland aside, I tried to explain to her that police in the U.S. almost NEVER use force on protesters, and if they do, the consequences are grave. But now, based on the above statement by my friend, I almost see what she means.
What do you all think? Can we as Americans speak our minds, whatever our sentiments? What about the Oscars, with the "scandal" involving Michael Moore (who is now famous in Europe and Arab countries based on his comments - sorta funny, huh?)?

I understand we do not need U.N. approval to go to war. I have no problem w/ that statement. Also, I support the Bush Administration and believe that this war is neccesary. I am disappointed in the U.N. They should have stood up w/ us against Saddam. Yet, they did not. I have no problem w/ the U.N. as an organization tho because it is a movement in the right direction, because people need to worry about problems on a GLOBAL SCALE. The U.N. does not undermine our agenda either. Are we proceeding in this war?

quote:

---

Let me apologize and make a clarification; not ALL treaties undermine the U.S. Constitution and strip us of our independence.

---

Okay, so which ones do? How do you know when one does or doesn't?

I must also reemphasize mags's statement: Iraq did not attack us, so you can't justify this war by claiming self-defense.

quote:

---

The U.N., being comprised of anti-individual socialists, seeks to UNDERMINE our Constitution by forcing us to adhere to THEIR agenda.

---

Unfortunately, Joey, they can't and don't force us to adhere to "their" agenda. First of all, the UN is subordinate to its member nations. Its agenda is their agenda; however, very rarely do they all agree on anything. Never, as a matter of fact. There is very little it can do to force compliance, especially against the world's only remaining superpower.

This war perfectly illustrates that point. Assuming for the moment that the UN has one single unified agenda, let's say that its agenda is to stop America from "defending" itself. Obviously, that agenda has failed miserably. See what I'm trying to say? It can't force adherence because a) it has no power and b) it doesn't try.

If you're going to accuse anyone of trying to force us to adhere to their agenda, make it the citizenry of the world. An international treaty may have been worked through the UN, but the citizens (as represented by their governments) chose the path, not the UN.

Our country was attacked by ISLAM FUNDAMENTALISTS, not by Saddam Hussein. This is the issue that us "anti-war" people have. We went against the UN, starting a war with a country that did not attack us. If anything, we have put Bin Laden and Saddam in bed together now.

Let me apologize and make a clarification; not ALL treaties undermine the U.S. Constitution and strip us of our independence.

quote:

---

As for the U.N. directly, I am disappointed in them, but that doesn't mean that you give up on it and pull out.

---

Let me put this nicely: When our country is attacked, we do NOT need authority from the United Nations to go and fight a war.


There's not one positive thing about a socialist that can be said; they don't value the principles that our U.S. Constitution solidifies - a socialist's philosophy is the complete and polar opposite of a Constitutionalist; America values individual liberty, freedom and economic freedom.

The U.N., being comprised of anti-individual socialists, seeks to UNDERMINE our Constitution by forcing us to adhere to THEIR agenda.

I'm gonna have to agree w/ Trickywidget on this one. Joey, how is it that treaties nullify the constitution? The other problem w/ the statement you made there was the implied idea that all treaties nullify the constitution. I can guarentee you that throughout our history there have been treaties that do not have that effect. As for the U.N. directly, I am disappointed in them, but that doesn't mean that you give up on it and pull out.

Joey, you didn't answer my question.

I asked how treaties undermine nat'l soverignty and you answer:

quote:

---

According to the Founders, they cautioned the future Congress/President NOT to sign treaties, because, hello, treaties nullify the Constitution.

---

How remarkably circular. Which bits exactly, do formal agreements between nations nullify? Especially considering that Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US constitution which you venerate so highly says specifically, "He [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur"

quote:

---

From the text I've read by them (Founders), the treaties this country has signed has done nothing but strip us of our property rights, individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and has caused us to disarm many of our nuclear weapons programs.

---

The Founders wrote things about nuclear disarmament? Anyways, do you have any specific examples of how they do this?

quote:

---

I have a little pamphlet that, during the JFK Administration, starts a process (three phases) of complete nuclear disarment of this country.

---

1) Quite obviously, that never came to pass.
2) Sounds to me like a unilateral process which has nothing to do with treaties...could you clarify?

quote:

---

Not only that, but the people who founded the U.N. are SOCIALISTS - that's as fact as the sun is hot.

---

*sigh* You continue to use that word as an insult without really comprehending what it means. I've said everything I can to try to explain it; I give up.

According to the Founders, they cautioned the future Congress/President NOT to sign treaties, because, hello, treaties nullify the Constitution.

From the text I've read by them (Founders), the treaties this country has signed has done nothing but strip us of our property rights, individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and has caused us to disarm many of our nuclear weapons programs.

I have a little pamphlet that, during the JFK Administration, starts a process (three phases) of complete nuclear disarment of this country.

Not only that, but the people who founded the U.N. are SOCIALISTS - that's as fact as the sun is hot.

The UN is not the League. It lasted through the Cold War, when both of the major powers simply ignored it. The world of 1920-1930 was much less internationally oriented than the world of 2003. The UN has a much larger scope than the League ever did. Also note that there is a HUGE difference between refusing to join and withdrawing. The UN is already well-established; the League never was. There's my case in general: Any particular point you'd like to argue?

Why the league of nations fail? because the United States did not join it. If the United States withdraws from the UN, it will collapse.

The UN will almost certainly not collapse, even if the US pulls out, which I doubt it'll do, unless current election trends keep up. :/

Anyway, could the accusers please explain how UN treaties undermine national sovereignty, when we ignore so many of them with impugnity (aside from screwing over our international relations)? Is it just that you feel that any international cooperation undermines said sovereignty? If so, why not demolish the State Department, close the borders, and leave the rest of the world to its own devices (unless it presents a percieved threat to our national security)?

I e-mailed my Representative asking him to support the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003. He is not only planning to support it, he has also signed on as a co-sponsor.

I apologize for making a posts that someone who likes to throw around racial slurs and laugh about them agrees with. Therfore I am withdrawing my opinion about this issue in hopes to clear my name.

the UN has become a charity...helping refugees offering food having no rights in militan affair taking care of the trouble his member made etc...
if the UN loses its power,it's not a good thing for anyone.someone has broken th rules.
you know why some countries respect the UN,because it's amazing that even the strongest country is limited,but now,not any more
without obeying and limiting each other,this world can easily gets out of control

Um...hello! I do not believe we can all talk about this so calmly. Do we realise what we are getting at? We pride ourselves on being the epitome of civilization. We look back at our past and stand proud at the sacrifice our forefathers made to give us the world we live in today and what do we do in return? Does anyone know WHY the United Nations was started? Does anyone know how many people had to DIE for it to become a reality. It was the one victory over the bloodshed and despair that characterised the first and second world war and to even think about destroying it merely equates us to Hitler!
There may be problems with it - there were then and will always be - however to think of destroying democracy (for which it stands for) because it doesn't 'suit'us is barbaric. We might as well have let Hitler continue terrorising the world becasue....hey, the League of Nations wasn't any good anyway!
Before we throw out the UN, let us think: what exactly do we stand for. There seems to be so much ambiguity in this world right now that the question may be harder than you think. I am not pointing any fingewrs or even condoning or supporting the war. But...How can the US go into Iraq to promote democracy when 75% of the world's population was against the war? Isn't that a contradiction in itself?
My point is, before we condem each other, let us look back to what our decisions in the past have wrought. History repeats itself and will continue to do so if we do not LEARN from our mistakes. Saddam of Iraq, Moi of Kenya, Mugabe of Zimbabwe...they were all great leaders until they felt threatned by external forces. After the Gulf War, the attempted Coup and the UK's defiance they all turned "nasty". Threatning leaders has dire consequences and often the people who suffer are the most uninvolved. The US supplied arms to Iraq, now they do not wnat them to have it anymore. The thing to remeber is one day, the US may not be the world super power. After all, if there is one thing September 11th taught us, it is that no one is truly invincible. When someone else is in the World "Drive'r's Seat" do we want them to do whatever they want? What is it happens to be France with a grudge against the US. Or an Islamic nation with a fanatic as its head. Who then will protect the US. It will be then that a conveniong body where people can express their views will be highly pertinent - do not destroy it, that may destroy you.

Not many...

I just have one question...

America has helped out so many countries for decades. When there are earthquakes, when countries need relief efforts, America helps. We donate billions of dollars a year to the rest of the world. We constantly rush to there aid. But when has another country rushed to help us in our time of need? Just recently the red cross announced they are broke.

I'm asking that not out of ingnorance but out of curiosity. I just realized that some other countries must have helped with September 11, but which ones and how much did they give?

Well, the U.N isn't perfect, but we have made many achievements. The Clinton administration worked very hard on foriegn policy, and during that time it paid off. All countries need allies. The U.N is a great source for making friends with other countries. I for one say we need to work much harder on our foriegn relations with other countries.

quote:

---

lol a Christianized Saddam? I like that one.

---

It wasn't meant to be humorous, Joey. But people always said that ignorance is bliss. It seems to apply now.