The Reality of the United Nations

Everything Political

Re: The Reality of the United Nations

Postby gunter » Sat May 01, 2010 5:19 pm

And that will solve the “problem” of our predatory nature how?
You're assuming that 'our nature' is 'predatory.' And I imagine you justify that by a deference to Natural Selection. But there's another principle at work in Evolution that points to the success of a 'cooperative' (altruist) 'nature' in regards to the conscious species. I submit that the survival of our species is as much as result of natural altruism as natural predation.
consider everything/ believe nothing
Image
User avatar
gunter
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:14 pm


Re: The Reality of the United Nations

Postby gunter » Sat May 01, 2010 5:29 pm

execution is nothing but revenge, and surely mankind has come a bit further than that?
We can only hope so.
consider everything/ believe nothing
Image
User avatar
gunter
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: The Reality of the United Nations

Postby Access Denied » Sat May 01, 2010 6:23 pm

Chorlton wrote:You cannot tell someone that Murder is wrong, then set about murdering him. Its a total contradiction

But it’s not murder in the case of an execution, it’s a consequence of the rule of law that one has already chosen to accept by virtue of their actions. If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime…

Essentially the murderer has given up his right to life by taking another's.

Chorlton wrote:I suspect in the distant future we will find an acceptable alternative and I realise that its an emotive subject.

That ‘s certainly a possibility. What would you suggest?

gunter wrote:I submit that the survival of our species is as much as result of natural altruism as natural predation.

On this we do not disagree…
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: The Reality of the United Nations

Postby gunter » Sat May 01, 2010 6:31 pm

gunter wrote:I submit that the survival of our species is as much as result of natural altruism as natural predation.



On this we do not disagree…
Good that you agree. All Chorlton and I are proposing here is that it benefits the ethical progress of humanity to incline towards the former rather than the latter.
consider everything/ believe nothing
Image
User avatar
gunter
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: The Reality of the United Nations

Postby Chorlton » Sun May 02, 2010 10:38 am

Access Denied wrote:
Chorlton wrote:You cannot tell someone that Murder is wrong, then set about murdering him. Its a total contradiction

But it’s not murder in the case of an execution, it’s a consequence of the rule of law that one has already chosen to accept by virtue of their actions. If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime…


Of course its murder !. No one has the right to take another's life. Its quite simple. If the State assumes the right of revenge via execution then, it should follow that everyone elses does. If a US governor has the right of saying Yeah or Neigh to an execution, he becomes the murdere by proxy and should be charged as such.

If you tell the populace that 'Murder is wrong', you then lose any credibility if you murder a criminal.
We've moved on from the old adage of an Eye for an Eye, we've passed that stage of evolution, and we should never lower ourselves to the morality of someone who chooses to murder, by doing the same. State sanctioned murder is also no deterrent, thats been proven

Access Denied wrote:Essentially the murderer has given up his right to life by taking another's.

Says who? If the murderer has given up his rights then surely anyone murdering him also give up his right's too?
Your rights end where my rights begin.

Access Denied wrote:
Chorlton wrote:I suspect in the distant future we will find an acceptable alternative and I realise that its an emotive subject.

That ‘s certainly a possibility. What would you suggest?

I dont know and I dont profess to.
Last edited by Access Denied on Sun May 02, 2010 2:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: fixed quotes
I have become that which I always despised and feared........Old !

My greatest wish, would be to own my own scrapyard.
User avatar
Chorlton
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm

Re: The Reality of the United Nations

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Mon May 03, 2010 4:34 pm

Back from a nice, long weekend away...

Chorlton wrote:OK Devils advocate here.


Understood.... but...

Firstly, whilst you or I might not agree with Irans Womens rights, they have the right to make those laws. They are a sovereign state and can make all the laws they want. Its also worthy to point out that many other countries have similar laws.


That does not mean they must be respected in an international forum, does it? Of course it doesn't. Your argument here, while trying to be devil's advocate, is specious to say the least. Because I can use your own argument to refute your second point, which I will do later in this post.


Now as for archaic Womens rights laws, as many countries actually have those laws, then its only right that one of the countries that has them is actually part of the Commision on Womens rights.


That would be equivalent to saying we should have unrepentent and unrehabilitated child molesters on a panel whose purpose it is to protect children from child molestation. It is fundamentally at odds with what you want for the sake of the children. Iran's laws that do not treat women as equally free as men (along with Saudi Arabia and any other number of countries who treat women as second class beings) are clearly biased. In continuing them that makes Iran unrepentent and unrehabilitated. Furthermore, given Iran's tendency to use any issue as justifying their position, there is no doubt they will use this appointment for political gain...pretending they care about the rights of women, while continuing their current treatment of them.

In that way the UN might atcually start a dialogue about changing Iran's and other countries laws without invading or attacking them?. If they are outside the Commision it will be impossible to get them into the discussion. Inside the Commision they may have to see some truths. I actually think the UN's decision could have been a good one. Think Laterally Ray


If you actually think there is any hope of an outside ("infidel", no less) organization being able to influence Iran's Theocratic laws, you are simply closing your mind to reality and preferring to adopt an idealist attitude. We live in reality, Chorlton, not ideality. And you are one of the first to point this out to people on other issues. Iran gets its laws from the Koran, and I would surmise that as long as this theocratic regime is in power, there is absolutely nothing that the Western world will be able to do to get it to changes it laws on women.

NOW ! on 'holding people to account' and being a 'model for the rest of the world' ?????
I think theres a little selectivity in your posting.
One should lead by example, Yes ? Is it a good example to the world that the US decides to wade into many countries, yet their leaders, generals and soldiers refuse to accept any jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and completely ignores it?
Is it a good example and right that US airmen can kill friendly troops and unarmed civilians yet refuse to be interviewed in UK courts or the ICJ about their actions whilst at the same time demanding extradiction of 3 businessmen on alleged fraud charges?.

Lead by example ? Hmmmmmmmmm.



You are right, it is an ideal that we should lead by example. But there is not a single society that has ever existed that has been perfect, and be able to "lead by example" in such a way that all issues are satisifed. Moreover, I can destroy this entire argument of yours with your own argument above... because you cannot have it both ways:

Firstly, whilst you or I might not agree with Irans Womens rights, they have the right to make those laws. They are a sovereign state and can make all the laws they want. Its also worthy to point out that many other countries have similar laws.


1) We in the US have the right to make these laws.
2) We in the US are a sovereign state and we can make all the laws we want.
3) It is also worthy to point out that many other countries have similar laws.

That should tidy-up that little problem, huh? :lol: Seriously though, I do agree with some of your points about the US being responsive to an international organization, to an extent. And the boundaries of that extent to which I can agree are determined based upon the functional effectiveness of any international organization in policing itself with appropriate checks and balances. To get us back on the UN topic, surely you cannot tell me that the UN, as currently implemented, is the best organization for a strong, democratic government like the US (or the UK!) to be completely beholden to? Because the biggest problem in the UN as currently implemented is the lack of checks and balances. The evidence of this is clear in the bloated UN bureaucracy, which cannot control its own spending, and which is subject to corruption via political cronyism (oil for food, sexual abuse in the Congo, ...).

The checks and balances of the US government, while not "perfect" (what is?), certainly rises above the level of the UN, IMO. And so it is for this reason that I can agree that perhaps US troops should be under the auspicies (or at least accoutable to) an international organization, at this time I do not believe the current UN is stronger than the US in policing itself.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: The Reality of the United Nations

Postby gunter » Mon May 03, 2010 5:24 pm

And so it is for this reason that I can agree that perhaps US troops should be under the auspicies (or at least accoutable to) an international organization,
You do realize that that would result in Bush and Cheney being trussed up and swinging slowly in a Hague springtime, no?
consider everything/ believe nothing
Image
User avatar
gunter
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: The Reality of the United Nations

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Mon May 03, 2010 5:28 pm

gunter wrote:
And so it is for this reason that I can agree that perhaps US troops should be under the auspicies (or at least accoutable to) an international organization,
You do realize that that would result in Bush and Cheney being trussed up and swinging slowly in a Hague springtime, no?


You took the quote out of context (the part after the comma), so it does not even deserve a response. Grow up and take the log out of your own eye, oh he-who-loves-to-preach-to-others.
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: The Reality of the United Nations

Postby Chorlton » Tue May 04, 2010 9:28 am

In a Nutshell. The UN isnt perfect, but its all we have at the moment, and its a start.
It can be improved but all countrie must adhere to those laws, any that dont need to be outcasts and have serious sanctions imposed.

As for Iran. The country has had a certain amount of Democracy before, and they have satellite systems showing them population what they are missing out on with respect to Democracy.
But its up to the people in their own country to change it, and not make the horrendous f---- up we all made in Iraq, turning a stable country with a despot as ruler into a warring hodgepodge of factions that, the day after the US departs will pretty much become an anti western Muslim state.

Ive always said, you cannot impose Democracy onto a peoples that dont understand it or have never had it. Its taken nigh on 2000 years of wars and civil wars in the UK to establish a form of Democracy that works.

Im not all that happy with the way women are treated in many countries of the world, but its up to them to sort their own problems out. If they cant do that then sod them. But to negate anyone participating in a World forum because you dont like the way they run their country smacks a bit of Dictatorship to me.
I have become that which I always despised and feared........Old !

My greatest wish, would be to own my own scrapyard.
User avatar
Chorlton
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm

Latest BS From Ahmadinejad

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed May 05, 2010 6:00 pm

I wish we could get Ahmadinejad on this forum! He would actually be forced to cite his sources! :lol:

Ahmadinejad Defends Iran's Seat on U.N. Women's Commission

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday appeared to defend his country's recent re-election to a seat on the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women, arguing that Iranian women are "highly respected" in his country while 70 percent of European women are physically abused.


Sources, Mahmoud????

This is reality, Chorlton. The guy, and hence their government, cannot be taken seriously. While I understand the gist of your argument in this thread, the one thing I have NOT seen you address is how we deal with realities like this ahole. Again I state: idealistic goals are wonderful to debate about and wish for. But they do not work in the real world. We need workable solutions not wet dreams.

In fact, I even saw you completely acquiesce that you have no such real, workable solutions in your reply to AD. I can respect that honesty, but now go the next step...and apply that honesty to the idealistic thoughts you express, and do the hard work of suggesting how we can get closer to them (with the understanding we can never get all the way there because of competing priorities).

It is easy to throw rocks at existing solutions, I do it all the time. But to propose better, but still workable, ways to reform. That is the stuff of leadership.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: The Reality of the United Nations

Postby Chorlton » Thu May 06, 2010 9:06 am

Ray, the simple answer to Iran is......ignore them! Its got nothing to do with you or me or whoever about their internal politics. It isnt your concern. There isnt any problem to solve because the US creates the problems to make itself important.
The US and UK doesnt have to challenge everything it doesnt like. In fact the UK doesnt really care about Iran, or for that matter anywhere else. Its only the grovelling politicians who continue to insist in kissing the US's arse that got us dragged in Kuwat then Iraq and then Afghanistan. I seriously doubt we will ever blindly follow the US into another war.

No one has the right to meddle in another countries internal politics. Why condemn Iran for its Womens rights when Saudi treats its women, far far worse.? Oh its because Saudi spends Billions of dollars on arms etc etc, at the same time as rewriting the Q'uran in its Wahabi style which actually encourages suicide bombers and attacks upon westerners. The Saudis' are the greatest threat to world peace (other than Hilary Clinton) the world has ever known, but its money camouflages its covert actions around the world.

Ive got no problems with Iran having Nukes. If it lobs one off, we lob a few back. End of. I doubt Russia would bother nor China.

The US needs to worry a bit more about its own country and stop pissing off the rest of the world by acting as a policemen that no one asked for.

Sorry if I sound harsh, but thats the way I feel.
I have become that which I always despised and feared........Old !

My greatest wish, would be to own my own scrapyard.
User avatar
Chorlton
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm

Re: The Reality of the United Nations

Postby gunter » Thu May 06, 2010 1:44 pm

I have NOT seen you address is how we deal with realities like this ahole.
Nor have you addressed this issue, Ray- unless I missed it. What Chorlton is saying is that the internal affairs of Iran are beyond our control despite his own 'idealistic' views on better polity. I'd submit that the best we can do, the best the world can do- is to offer moral support to the progressive people of that nation in their struggle to work free of the the yoke of the ruling religious nuts. Do you acatually have a better approach? If so we're all ears.
consider everything/ believe nothing
Image
User avatar
gunter
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: The Reality of the United Nations

Postby Chorlton » Thu May 06, 2010 3:17 pm

gunter wrote:
I have NOT seen you address is how we deal with realities like this ahole.
Nor have you addressed this issue, Ray- unless I missed it. What Chorlton is saying is that the internal affairs of Iran are beyond our control despite his own 'idealistic' views on better polity. I'd submit that the best we can do, the best the world can do- is to offer moral support to the progressive people of that nation in their struggle to work free of the the yoke of the ruling religious nuts. Do you acatually have a better approach? If so we're all ears.


But why? whats it got to do with anyone, whats going on in another country? Thats their business not yours.
My point was not that Iran's internal affairs are beyond anyones control but that they arent the business of anyone else.
One could profer the opinion that a country that posesses sufficient Nuclear Missiles to obliterate the world many many times over and that has actually used them in anger doesnt have the right to tell another country it cant have the selfsame defence it has for itself. I would also suggest that the country that has actually used Nuclear Weapons in anger shouldnt be allowed to have them.

And pardon me !!!! 'offer moral support' WHAT ?? A country with no morals such as the US offering Moral support to anyone?? Dont make I larf, I pee I self.

I am now hopefull that the UK has now started the slow slow process of ridding itself of Nuclear Weapons.

s^~t I'm in a bad mood today. Anyone else want their nuts chewed off ?
I have become that which I always despised and feared........Old !

My greatest wish, would be to own my own scrapyard.
User avatar
Chorlton
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm

Re: The Reality of the United Nations

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Thu May 06, 2010 3:25 pm

Chorlton wrote:Ray, the simple answer to Iran is......ignore them! Its got nothing to do with you or me or whoever about their internal politics. It isnt your concern. There isnt any problem to solve because the US creates the problems to make itself important.

and
gunter wrote:What Chorlton is saying is that the internal affairs of Iran are beyond our control despite his own 'idealistic' views on better polity.


It would seem we have not one, but two reincarnations of Neville Chamberlain on this board. "Mr. Churchill, the simple answer to Germany is... ignore them! It's got nothing to do with you or me or whoever about their internal politics. It isn't your concern. There isn't any problem to solve because the UK creates the problems to make itself important." Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I'd also beg to differ with you that it is merely "internal politics". When Iran cooperates with North Korea, and when they send advisors and weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon, along with their pals Syria, it certainly becomes more than just internal politics. When Iran goes to the UN and claims the holocaust was fraudulent, and says Israel should be wiped out, it becomes more than just internal politics. I am afraid you are simply wrong in this judgment, Chorlton. If they just kept to their backward selves, and were not attempting to further disrupt the entire middle east, as a catalyst to pave the way for the return of their holy Imam, then it would be as you say. But it is not as you say. And your attempts to whitewash it as such are clearly reminisicent of that ostrich from your country's past who stuck his head in the sand and allowed the Nazis to grow into a real problem.

The US and UK doesnt have to challenge everything it doesnt like. In fact the UK doesnt really care about Iran, or for that matter anywhere else. Its only the grovelling politicians who continue to insist in kissing the US's arse that got us dragged in Kuwat then Iraq and then Afghanistan. I seriously doubt we will ever blindly follow the US into another war.


Again, that is just funny (and scary) when viewed with the goggles of history. If the US did not follow the UK into a war oh so long ago, the UK would not be around to follow the US into any wars...now would it?

Ive got no problems with Iran having Nukes. If it lobs one off, we lob a few back. End of. I doubt Russia would bother nor China.


What's this "we" s^~t, white man? :lol: In one sentence you demand the UK not be joined at the hip to the US, but then when you posit nuclear activities by Iran it becomes "we" again. Convenient. What if it is not the "lobbing" of nukes, but the covert placement of them....in Chorlton's garden? Your attempts to minimize the danger of fanaticism in the world, Mr. Chamberlain, cause you to miss the target. It is not about Iran, the state, developing overt nukes on rockets. It is about that state's irresponsibility, and quite frankly its extreme religious motivation, to promulgate those weapons to their covert friends and their covert activities. That lot do not obey anything having to do with the Geneva Convention, but for some reason in fighting their terrorists, we are held to that standard. That is an issue that is never brought to light. You do realize, I hope, that the Geneva Convention imposes rules of warfare that terrorists do not obey, right? Like wearing uniforms so they can be identified, and not seeking to hide themselves amongst the civilian population. Why is it OK to get your knickers in an uproar when the US disobeys Geneva Convention rules for prisoners of war, but no one gets upset at the terrorist themselves for doing the same thing? Double standards exist where we do not like to admit them...

The US needs to worry a bit more about its own country and stop pissing off the rest of the world by acting as a policemen that no one asked for.


Again I ask you to live in reality, not ideality. Nature abhors a vacuum. At one time, those exact same words applied to the UK. Just substitute "US" with "UK/England". If the US, as the defacto muscleman in the world, goes away, someone else is GOING to step in. That is reality, and no amount of idealistic pining will prevent it. And the issue is, as much as you hate the US for taking on the role England once held, you might hate the next world hegemon a lot more... especially if they are from anywhere in Asia. They might not be so democratic.

Sorry if I sound harsh, but thats the way I feel.


No worries. It is a politics forum. I am pretty sure you view my stance on these issues as harsh too. It's all good.

gunter wrote:Nor have you addressed this issue, Ray- unless I missed it. What Chorlton is saying is that the internal affairs of Iran are beyond our control despite his own 'idealistic' views on better polity. I'd submit that the best we can do, the best the world can do- is to offer moral support to the progressive people of that nation in their struggle to work free of the the yoke of the ruling religious nuts. Do you acatually have a better approach? If so we're all ears.


I certainly began to point out where change is needed in my 2nd or 3rd post in this thread. Perhaps I was not specific enough: The UN, as currently embodied, is wholly ineffective in achieving what its charter says it wants to achieve. While you may wish to challenge that just because that is what you do, Toon, the reality is you cannot. it is a bloated waste of money whose rules and processes cannot even "keep peace" much less foster a single vision thereof that it purports to promulgate.

The solution begins with gutting the UN and changing its rules, and I even inferred what the first step in that process is: You have to get rid of the "single member veto" rule in the Security Council. Its factual history of use to obviate any real progress cannot be denied. It PREVENTS making things better in the world. It is, right now, PREVENTING any real sanctions or actions being taken against Iran simply because China and Russia seek to neutralize the US's wish to "do something" to head off nuclear proliferation. And granted, I am well aware that such changes will mean that interests of the US will not always be served. But so be it. You cannot simply have a single country (esp. a communist oligarchy like China) holding up progress on issues that can begin to reform some of the cesspools of the world. Everyone deserves to live under the kind of safety, security, and freedom that we live under. And I thought you and Chorlton are the bleeding-heart compassionate types, Toon?

As much as we all, idealistically, agree to hate war, the reality is there are crooks and scum in the world...both on the individual level and at the level of nations. If nothing is done, the crooks take over, or at least prevent progress by those of us who obey the rule of law. There has not been a single resolution passed by the UN aimed at a rogue state that has had any teeth. It's all bluff, and the dictators and oligarchs of the world know it. It is precisely why Iran feels emboldened to tick off the rest of the civilized world today! And to agree with you on another point, perhaps such a major change in Security Council rules will result in a few slaps to we in the US such that we will be forced to clean up our own backyard!

I would love for us in the US to be able to turn into a Switzerland. For one thing, it would STOP sending my tax money all over the world to people who not only do NOT deserve it, but abuse it for their own personal power. I would love for the US to withdraw from its role as world's policeman. But as I said above, nature abhors a vacuum, and who do you think would rise to take its place, and would you be all happy for that? China, most likely, at this point. I am sure you would love the rules China would impose on you after they took over the UK, wouldn't you Chorlton?

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: The Reality of the United Nations

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Thu May 06, 2010 3:30 pm

Chorlton wrote:s^~t I'm in a bad mood today. Anyone else want their nuts chewed off ?


Sure, I'll have a go! :lol:

But why? whats it got to do with anyone, whats going on in another country? Thats their business not yours.
My point was not that Iran's internal affairs


Short-sighted fallacy. You ignore the actions Iran takes to influence and cause trouble beyond its borders. Stop ignoring the obvious, Mr. Chamberlain.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

PreviousNext

Google

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 11 guests

cron