by TerryWalstrom 143 Replies latest jw friends
Does anybody think the U.N. could be that big stick?
No. Russia has the power of veto which it uses every time the Security Council tries to pass a resolution against her evil cronies such as Asaad.
The U.N. has shown time and time again to be a toothless tiger. How many times have U.N. 'peacekeepers' had to stand by helplessly and watch tyrants murder helpless victims?
Hi Terry - thought-provoking post.
Brexit represents the struggle of a people to declare a limit to being absorbed into ( essentially) a larger nation/state, the EU - almost, not quite. The EU is a supranational state that was being forced onto us, in other words it's not a larger state, it's bigger than that.
(BTW I don't hate Europeans, I just remain extremely suspicious of the supranational entity that is the EU - UK citizens voted for a European trading bloc in the 70s, and that trading area then morphed into a political entity behind the electorate's collective backs.)
How would you Yanks feel if your government forced you into a political partnership with Mexico, Argentina, Brasil etc. and didn't want to consult you about it? I'm sure you get my point.
And two years ago, the British people said enough ... WE WANT OUT.
And in the midst if this Britain remarkably, to my off shore understanding, has filed for her human independence from “bigness” She wants to sort out intra-national problems such as cultural/racial/religious norms within her region. She is simply limiting the interference from abroad. I am a Yank and may be way off base but there it is my thought - you are indeed a Yank and I think you're rather perceptive. The UK has some serious problems which are exacerbated by the pernicious doctrine of multiculturalism. I'd like like to move to the USA, Canada or Australia either temporarily or permanently. Maybe, one day, I could become a Yank like you ...
Edit: aww fuck, I think I responded to Humbled's comments, not Terry's.
Well, I think both Terry and Humbled are perceptive posters.
Russia has the power of veto which it uses every time the Security Council tries to pass a resolution against her evil cronies such as Asaad.
Something troubles me about this reluctance for there to be any judgment on the big players-like Russia...or the US.
I can’t get it out of my head that the US by refusing to participate in the International Criminal Court may allow Russia the freedom to avoid judgement as well. As l have pointed out elsewhere, the US has committed clandestine crimes —maybe should / could be tried for. Hillary Clinton did not want to the US to join the ICC for the reasons that the US role in the World was special and made it vulnerable to accusation. On the other hand one of the prosecutors in the Nuremberg trials wrote about the need for the US to be part of such a court.
Especially because the US refuses to submit to international judgement l find it unhealthy that the UN relies so heavily on this country. This reliance removes tooth and backbone to international justice -and peace.
Do you think the US should join the ICC?
The U.N. has shown time and time again to be a toothless tiger. How many times have U.N. 'peacekeepers' had to stand by helplessly and watch tyrants murder helpless victims?
Or, as we've learned, the UN and it's associates are the ones committing the atrocious acts.
If you went off the UN, then Israel is *the* worst country on the planet by a country mile. That it can be labelled as such while there are far, far worse regimes around shows what a shit-show the UN has become.
The best case for world peace is a powerful and strong democratically controlled country with a friendly disposition toward allies around the world. The five-eye countries do more to keep peace in the world than the UN manages - it's just a rubber-stamping obstruction.
So this is vain hope that the UN will ever be more than nothing for international crimes. So cofty said, a toothless tiger now and forever.
And looking at a brief account of the surveillance system and interdependence of those English speaking nations, the Five-eyes are the protectors of life as westerners know it.
It is good to know there are policemen. But it is also bad because l know that they protect their own and any one of them is corruptable . And they protect their own.
George H Bush was CIA and vice president under President Reagan. He ran that stuff that was so crooked and criminal with that Iran-Contra business. George H Bush was CIA and vice president under President Reagan. The collusion in back of the war in Iraq that stripped oil out of that country and left devastation and this unfolding chaos in the Muslim/ oil countries. It sickens.
There is a saying in Spanish that translates: “Everyone judges the fair according to their luck.” Some people are still in luck with this system but more and more of us people are struggling with structured failure as Ruby has somewhat mentioned in her posts. The powerful don’t listen to the working poor. The multinational corporations have their claws deep into the political structures of nations. But systems created by Big Money are not sustainable. I am watching them fail right here where l live in this little part of the world in Arkansas.
Humbled last time I looked the USA was not a nation state but a federation of states. However, the paradox here is that nationalism is being wielded more and more. So it seems that despite not being a nation state the US is acting more and more like one. In Europe we moving away from ideas of nation state towards ideas of state because of the mix of different ethnicities and religions within state borders, so this seems to be more like the US idea of a federation of states.
Strong nationalists are clinging to an identity that is ceasing to have relevance in Europe. I'm watching this with interest.
And if you all thought you were going to get away without a link to futureLeArn then you couldn't be more wrong
https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/global-studies-risks-threats/2/todo/28892
However, the paradox here is that nationalism is being wielded more and more - increasing feelings of nationalism is simply pushback against liberal ideas being forced down are throats, e.g. ...
'Imagine a world without borders' - get your head out the clouds, it ain't gonna happen
'let's blindly let in masses of refugees' - how about checking their status first, eh?
'let's smash The Patriarchy!' - what are you gonna replace it with?!
'down with capitalism!' - (as the protester texts their friends using the latest I-phone, a product of capitalism.)
etc., etc.
Of course right-wing politicians will use feelings of nationalism to their advantage, it's what all politicians do ... they use people's feelings and bias for their political advantage.
As I say, if the Left hadn't forced trendy crap down our throats, this rising tide of nationalism probably wouldn't have happened.
Luhe More quotes from a particular site you visit as no one here says those kinds of things
@Ruby - nobody here says those things but lots of people out in the real world do.
You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.
I'm not making sh1t up.
