Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 46
  1. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    What about the WTO. Isn't that just a caucus of nations? I am beginning to think that when you say cede power you mean ALL power. I dont think thats how it works.



    Withdrawing from the agreement. If its no longer mutually beneficial (and a net positive) then countries tend to withdraw from treaties, as I am sure the US has itself done on a number of occasions.

    Surur
    This is not a particularly complete answer, and further more ignores the machinations that govern the UN.

    Firstly, there are two types of memberships in the UN. The first group is the group of 5 nations that are permanent members of the Security Council. Then there is everyone else. To paraphrase drastically the UN Charter, the UN states that are members of the security council can tell the rest of the other members what to do on many matters regarding UN policy. In other words, the resolutions of the Security Council on member states who are not part of the security council are binding if they are made under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. Furthermore, the group of 5 are never required to abrogate their perogatives because of a UN decision. Veto power is absolute and cannot be overridden. Every country in the UNSC has used this veto power many times in the last 70 years (with the USSR/Russians using it the most followed by the US).

    For reasons valid and invalid, this has pissed off the have and have-nots in the UN pecking order.

    We see the will of the UNSC working against countries like North Korea, Iraq. We see the UNSC working against persons like Mugabe. The UNSC has used its authority in diverse places from Haiti to Kosovo.

    So for countries to "back out" of an agreement is not quite simple. Sometimes countries are forced to abide by agreements, even though the UNSC - a political organization like any other - will often balk to enfore their own resolutions.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    So for countries to "back out" of an agreement is not quite simple. Sometimes countries are forced to abide by agreements, even though the UNSC - a political organization like any other - will often balk to enfore their own resolutions.
    Would these countries be any less obligated to comply with the will of the most powerful 5 nations in the world if they never joined the UN? I dont think so.

    As some-one somewhere must have said before, all laws (international or otherwise) are ultimately backed by the threat of force. The UNSC, like all forms of government, are just a way to coordinate that force.

    Surur
  3. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    Would these countries be any less obligated to comply with the will of the most powerful 5 nations in the world if they never joined the UN? I dont think so.
    This is correct. Recognition of the UN is not a prerequisite in order to be subject to its demands, but this is a non-issue anyway because "membership does have its priviledges".

    Couple this with the fact that only about one-handful of states and territories are not members of the UN.
  4.    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    What about the WTO. Isn't that just a caucus of nations? I am beginning to think that when you say cede power you mean ALL power. I dont think thats how it works.



    Withdrawing from the agreement. If its no longer mutually beneficial (and a net positive) then countries tend to withdraw from treaties, as I am sure the US has itself done on a number of occasions.

    Surur
    The Wikipedia articile defines the ultimate recourse for WTO member nations as the right to "suspend application to the member concerned of concessions or other obligations under the covered agreements." In other words, if you fail to extend the agreed upon privilieges, you shall be deprived of them as well.

    The UN on the other hand, has military might at its disposal--i.e the threat of force.

    ============================

    I often raise questions without personal context. I do this in hopes that my personal bias does not direct the conversation (I learn more that way).

    At this time, I'll introduce my personal bias:

    At this time, I prefer that the USofA remain a sovreign nation answerable to itself, in terms of world politics. I would not like to see this nation subject to another ruling body. And, my sense is that the UN is poised to become such a ruling body.

    As stated earlier, I believe our Consitution provides adequate means of addressing abuse of power by a representative--a means of "putting the genie back in the bottle," if you will. However, given the composition of the UN, I don't know that "unempowering" the UN is an option that would be readily available to the US.

    Granted, the threat of force is always of concern regardless of the organizational structure of those who would enforce their will. However, I'm concerned that the US, perhaps comfortable in its own might and its present influence in the UN, is creating a monster that may soon be its master.
  5. #25  
    As Godeja said, the US is already subject to the UN and its whims, including the threat of force. That this is an empty and impractical threat would not change were the US to allow the UN to dictate how the US measures its bananas.

    Its quite funny, but in some ways to you put too much and other times too little weight on the power and the rule of law, when it all comes down to force in the end.

    Your president abusing power in America can as easily revoke the constitution as e.g. the UN can force America to give up Texas to Mexico. Neither would be easy, but no law of man will prevent either from happening. It all comes down to who holds the real power.

    The real threat to American Sovereignty is external dependence. Only when America can be successfully blackmailed (e.g. you do this, otherwise we will do this, and you will really regret it, or e.g. China invades Taiwan, and America is told to stay out of it, else China will stop trading with them and sell all their American currency) can you say America has lost sovereignty. America is obviously a long way from this, but economic factors more than anything else is a much bigger threat than any political machinations.

    Surur
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    At this time, I'll introduce my personal bias:
    Considering the ill-prepared 'question' you asked, should we feel privileged?

    At this time, I prefer that the USofA remain a sovreign nation answerable to itself, in terms of world politics.
    And, who doesn't?

    I would not like to see this nation subject to another ruling body. And, my sense is that the UN is poised to become such a ruling body.
    Your vote has been cast, but you apparently were on the losing side. That is, unless you define 'ruling body' as one which has ultimate veto authority.

    As stated earlier, I believe our Consitution provides adequate means of addressing abuse of power by a representative--a means of "putting the genie back in the bottle," if you will.
    As I stated, you had your vote, but apparently didn't get your way.

    Did the Ford-Whitewash of Nixon's crimes 'put the genie back into the bottle' too? You did vote for Ford in 1974, did you not?

    However, given the composition of the UN, I don't know that "unempowering" the UN is an option that would be readily available to the US.
    Seems that there is much that you don't know. How's the unambiguous fishing expedition goin'?

    Granted, the threat of force is always of concern regardless of the organizational structure of those who would enforce their will. However, I'm concerned that the US, perhaps comfortable in its own might and its present influence in the UN, is creating a monster that may soon be its master.
    If you've paid any attention during the 20th or 21st centuries, you'd know that fear is the exclusive sole tool of a cowardly enemy.
  7.    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    ...It all comes down to who holds the real power....
    Surur
    Indeed.

    NOTE: I found much value in the snipped items as well. For example, the commentary on the economic condition reminded me that the borrower is subject to the lender. But it was the quoted statement, in particular, that crystallized the matter for me.

    Thanx
  8. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    As Godeja said, the US is already subject to the UN and its whims, including the threat of force.
    I did not say anything remotely close to what you attributing to me.

    I made the distinction between the UNSC membership and how that membership (or lack thereof) affects policies towards countries.

    Its quite funny, but in some ways to you put too much and other times too little weight on the power and the rule of law, when it all comes down to force in the end.
    Well the "rule of law" is a relative thing. Different societies have different values. You are correct in your remark of the universality of the use of force, as it is a language everyone understands.

    ...but still, the UN was created with the good intention of using the rule of law, and not tanks, to solve problems. In this regard, the UN has been a complete failure. However, the attempt should always be made to avert bloodshed, even when it is inevitable.

    Of course, one only needs to look at the roster of nations that make up the UN to see why.

    The real threat to American Sovereignty is external dependence. Only when America can be successfully blackmailed (e.g. you do this, otherwise we will do this, and you will really regret it, or e.g. China invades Taiwan, and America is told to stay out of it, else China will stop trading with them and sell all their American currency) can you say America has lost sovereignty. America is obviously a long way from this, but economic factors more than anything else is a much bigger threat than any political machinations.
    I think you are missing one side of the equation here. This dependence you speak of, I take it, is in regards to our consumerism.

    In order to support rampant consumerism, you need to have an equally eager seller. It is because of our consumerism that the economies of many countries in the world are being kept afloat, and we can support that consumerism because we have the largest and most developed middle class in the world that generates a tremendous amount of wealth to fuel that consumerism.

    I think everyone would like to see balanced foreign trade, but trade deficits are not necessarily a fatal condition.

    So just as it is in our interest that we have access to cheap DVD players from Chinese, it is in China's interest to make sure they supply it to us.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    I think you are missing one side of the equation here. This dependence you speak of, I take it, is in regards to our consumerism.

    In order to support rampant consumerism, you need to have an equally eager seller. It is because of our consumerism that the economies of many countries in the world are being kept afloat, and we can support that consumerism because we have the largest and most developed middle class in the world that generates a tremendous amount of wealth to fuel that consumerism.

    I think everyone would like to see balanced foreign trade, but trade deficits are not necessarily a fatal condition.

    So just as it is in our interest that we have access to cheap DVD players from Chinese, it is in China's interest to make sure they supply it to us.
    I think we can agree its the relative size of the US vs other countries (or even the whole world combined) that keeps US safe from political, military and economic threats. There are 2 ways therefore to proceed:

    1) Continue forward confidently getting more involved in international structures, because you believe the US is safe from being dictated to by other countries due to the above or...

    2) Believe USA is on the decline, and that involvement now (from a position of strength) will result in oppression in the future when the USA is more weak.

    The conclusion we can therefore draw is that the Americans most in favor of isolationist behavior are the ones least confident in the country and its future.

    Surur
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Well the "rule of law" is a relative thing.
    Your Nixon-Ford-Raygun heros certainly made that crystal-clear!

    ...but still, the UN was created with the good intention of using the rule of law, and not tanks, to solve problems. In this regard, the UN has been a complete failure.
    All those multi-year, bloodbath wars of theirs ... I tell ya.

    However, the attempt should always be made to avert bloodshed, even when it is inevitable.
    Confusing your login names again? This is hardly a statement of the Great and Powerful gojeda, Queen of Oz

    In order to support rampant consumerism, you need to have an equally eager seller. It is because of our consumerism that the economies of many countries in the world are being kept afloat, and we can support that consumerism because we have the largest and most developed middle class in the world that generates a tremendous amount of wealth to fuel that consumerism.
    Is this DoctorStrangelove's 21st century version of trickle-down economics? Middle-class consumerism is a value which should be protected? If only their parents had taken them out back just one more time ...

    I think everyone would like to see balanced foreign trade, but trade deficits are not necessarily a fatal condition.
    When placed into the hands of an enemy? Yeah ... that's pure genius!

    As shown, cheap products are not the issue. Cheap contract manufacturing is the issue as every other economy in the world benefits, but is being subsidized by the American middle-class.

  11. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    I think we can agree its the relative size of the US vs other countries (or even the whole world combined) that keeps US safe from political, military and economic threats. There are 2 ways therefore to proceed:

    1) Continue forward confidently getting more involved in international structures, because you believe the US is safe from being dictated to by other countries due to the above or...

    2) Believe USA is on the decline, and that involvement now (from a position of strength) will result in oppression in the future when the USA is more weak.

    The conclusion we can therefore draw is that the Americans most in favor of isolationist behavior are the ones least confident in the country and its future.

    Surur
    What you speak of, by the way, is not particularly endemic to the United States. The EU, for example, has seen a trade deficit with China that is widening to the tune of 128 billion Euro in 2006.

    As far as the vague term of "international structures", is it not a bit late to talk about the global economy at this stage of the game?
  12. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    All those multi-year, bloodbath wars of theirs ... I tell ya.
    The fact that the UN is incapable of conducting a roadblock effectively probably has more to do with it.

    Confusing your login names again? This is hardly a statement of the Great and Powerful gojeda, Queen of Oz
    Because diplomacy fails more times than not, that is still a poor excuse not to exercise it.


    Is this DoctorStrangelove's 21st century version of trickle-down economics? Middle-class consumerism is a value which should be protected?
    It is called the global economy Shortstuff

    When placed into the hands of an enemy?
    No no - I was not talking about Clinton's export of space technology to China Shortielicious.

    As shown, cheap products are not the issue. Cheap contract manufacturing is the issue as every other economy in the world benefits, but is being subsidized by the American middle-class.
    Cheap products sell faster than their more expensive counterpart. To ignore that is to ignore the basis of supply and demand. This is why televisions are not produced in this country anymore. Someone else does it cheaper - end of story.

    The American Middle Class makes it possible, along with every other industrialized economy with a large middle class (EU).
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    The fact that the UN is incapable of conducting a roadblock effectively probably has more to do with it.
    Still trying to have it both ways by taking the coward's way out, sock-puppet? Typical.

    Because diplomacy fails more times than not, that is still a poor excuse not to exercise it.
    If only a real priority were focused upon, rather than a grudge-match between a CIA-asset and a pompous fratboy who is allergic to cleaning up his own messes.

    It is called the global economy Shortstuff
    That's called apologia, Muppet. Look into it.

    No no - I was not talking about Clinton's export of space technology to China Shortielicious.
    I suppose, in some odd way, I should be flattered. But, Chuckles, uummm... I don't swing that way.

    Cheap products sell faster than their more expensive counterpart.
    Lowest-common-denominator economics is not in the US middle-class's best interest. History is your friend, not to be feared.

    To ignore that is to ignore the basis of supply and demand.
    Where is mass consumerism, mortgaged by the American middle-class, shown to be a founding principle of the US? Monroe? Jefferson? Locke?

    The American Middle Class makes it possible, along with every other industrialized economy with a large middle class (EU).
    As you inconveniently already stated, the US middle class is, by far, the world's most developed. Your one-trick pony just bucked you off, Chuckles.
  14. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Still trying to have it both ways by taking the coward's way out, sock-puppet? Typical.
    Name-calling again Shortie? Tsk tsk...watch it, you might get banned....again.

    If only a real priority were focused upon, rather than a grudge-match between a CIA-asset and a pompous fratboy who is allergic to cleaning up his own messes.
    Nothing endemic to this adminstration, the one before it, or the one who succeeds it. The UN has been a failure for the better part of 6 decades - and its problems cannot be fixed even with the resources of a superpower at its disposal.

    That's called apologia, Muppet. Look into it.
    You are losing your touch Shortstuff. There was a time when you made sense, even if you were off the mark. Now, you are just rambling.

    Lowest-common-denominator economics is not in the US middle-class's best interest. History is your friend, not to be feared.
    Cheap does not always mean "lowest common denominator", it means lower costs.

    Please contact your high schooll economics professor that you so obviously lost contact with.

    Where is mass consumerism, mortgaged by the American middle-class, shown to be a founding principle of the US? Monroe? Jefferson? Locke?
    Milton Friedman....

    ...close, but peeing into the wind never helps Shortie.

    As you inconveniently already stated, the US middle class is, by far, the world's most developed. Your one-trick pony just bucked you off, Chuckles.
    The good and bad of consumerism affects us most because we are the primary economic engine for the rest of the world. This is not to say that other large middle classes, from other countries or regions, are immune.

    ...then again, as you have inconveniently shown time and time again, critical thinking is not your strong point.

    on your latest non-answer.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Name-calling again Shortie? Tsk tsk...watch it, you might get banned....again.
    "Name-calling again, Shortie?" ... How tragically and appropriately hypocritical. When you are no longer a sock-puppet, I'll gladly refrain.

    Nothing endemic to this adminstration, the one before it, or the one who succeeds it. The UN has been a failure for the better part of 6 decades - and its problems cannot be fixed even with the resources of a superpower at its disposal.
    Yet, while all the whining and crying over it, the same individuals have no progressive plan for a UN with sharper teeth, except when a UNSC resolution is required to greenlight a grudge-match.

    Now, you are just rambling.
    Sweeping away the truth does not change the truth.

    Cheap does not always mean "lowest common denominator", it means lower costs.
    It means artificially lower production costs, giving manufacturers larger operating and profit margins than they can obtain elsewhere. The consumer does not enjoy the same degree of 'savings'.

    Milton Friedman....

    ...close, but peeing into the wind never helps Shortie.
    Milton Berle must've taught you all you needed to know, Chuckles. But, thanks for the admission that the founding purpose of this once great nation was hijacked in the 20th century.

    The good and bad of consumerism affects us most because we are the primary economic engine for the rest of the world. This is not to say that other large middle classes, from other countries or regions, are immune.
    Exactly why the American middle-class bears the burden of mortgaging the world's cost savings.
  16. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Yet, while all the whining and crying over it, the same individuals have no progressive plan for a UN with sharper teeth, except when a UNSC resolution is required to greenlight a grudge-match.
    I believe we are many years past the point of shedding "tears" for the UN. Most thinking men point and laugh at it these days. Only the deluded among us think there is a "plan" for the UN to salvage its "street-cred".

    Sweeping away the truth does not change the truth.
    If you had only uttered a morsel of truth to begin with, then you might have had a point here.

    It means artificially lower production costs, giving manufacturers larger operating and profit margins than they can obtain elsewhere.
    Indeed....but then you verbally farted with....

    The consumer does not enjoy the same degree of 'savings'.
    ...which is a meaningless statement as this has absolutely nothing to do with "lower production costs" and large profit margins.

    Milton Berle must've taught you all you needed to know, Chuckles. But, thanks for the admission that the founding purpose of this once great nation was hijacked in the 20th century.
    Kudos on your latest non-answer. Tsk tsk Shortstuff, I've already warned you not to ask a question if you are going to hold you breath and stomp-off stage left when the answer is an inconvenient one.
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Milton Friedman....
    A founding father, eh? Pathetic, even given the source, muppet.
  18. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    A founding father, eh? Pathetic, even given the source, muppet.
    As far as 20th century economics are concerned, I'd say that is a fair assessment.
  19. #39  
    Speaking of farted out answers ...

    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    As far as 20th century economics are concerned, I'd say that is a fair assessment.
  20. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Speaking of farted out answers ...
    "Where is mass consumerism, mortgaged by the American middle-class, shown to be a founding principle of the US? Monroe? Jefferson? Locke?"

    Bra....vo
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions