Since we started the thing in the first place I think the question is a tad rhetorical. I am somewhat ambivalent, actually. As mentioned by other posters the U.N. plays a very large role in International Law, which is an aspect often overlooked. But International Law agreements could be made outside the U.N., as well. I just don't think the U.N. matters much to the U.S. and I don't think we are better or worse off without it.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

And would like to add that creating an alliance of only democratic nations would only encourage non-democracies to create a formal alliance against it. Then it becomes even more difficult to make change.

__________________
WARNING: In the unlikely event of an accidental agreement with any or all points made in the above post, contact a clinical psychologist immediately.

The views expressed in the above post are not necessarily those of Joker and/or any of his affiliates.

"You have found the secret message. Do you have too much time on your hands? ...Let it go."

We cant do both at once?

Severing ties with the UN cant make things worse. Only better.

Even better.

But I doubt that would happen. The economic benefits alone of being in the democracy club would make it more appealing.

More difficult than NOW? Exactly which countries has the UN "converted" so far?

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

I was pleasantly surprised to see that the Pro-UN people are in the minority by an almost 2-1 margin so far in the poll.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

If you think it's difficult now, imagine how hard it would be if every non-democracy were supporting each other.

__________________
WARNING: In the unlikely event of an accidental agreement with any or all points made in the above post, contact a clinical psychologist immediately.

The views expressed in the above post are not necessarily those of Joker and/or any of his affiliates.

"You have found the secret message. Do you have too much time on your hands? ...Let it go."

If you are of the opinion that America`s interests and freedom of action is the top priority then there is probably very little reason. Possibly it is better for Americans if America remains the biggest fish in a lawless pond.

But if you replace "America`s interests" with "the common good" then it would seem quite reasonable for America to submit itself to the rule of law.

I don`t follow your argument that America would have no voice or influence in an international bureaucracy or court. Surely, as the most powerful nation on earth, if the US were to engage fully it would likely have the greatest influence.

__________________
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Marx (G.)

I`m no legal expert, so please educate me, but I would think that IF you agree with the idea of international law then you must have some sort of legislator to determine those laws and some sort of adjudicator to determine whether those laws have been broken. The UN performs those functions (in a haphazard, imperfect way).

I wasn`t making a demo/non-demo comparison. What I was saying is that perfect solutions are hard to find. Our own democratic institutions (of which we are so proud) are not perfect. We understand that and work within their limitations or seek to improve them. We don`t just point at their deficiencies and declare the whole system should be torn down.

I have no problems at all with the ideals or principles of the UN. It`s the implementation and enacting of those ideals that so needs improving.


No.

How could the US argue that dictator should stand down because he is a dictator whilst at the same time supporting dictators elsewhere? It would be/is hypocritical.

Another problem that I see with your strong stand on non-democracies is that it makes no allowance for those countries that are in a transitional stage like (hopefully) Pakistan. If the world were to polarise between democratic countries and non-demo then these transitional countries would, by default, fall into the non-demo camp and democratic change would thence be stiffled. There is no objection to democratic countries making additional treaties betwixt themselves but to isolate non-democracies from the UN would be counter productive from a democratic point of view.

__________________
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Marx (G.)

I dont think it would be difficult...I think it would be easier.

Even with most democratic nations AGAINST us we have already converted several nations. The effect could only be amplified if we were all on the same side.

I think polarizing the two main ideologies of the world would speed up their conversion, not slow it down. If they saw that defeat was inevitable, they would be more likely to negotiate a transition.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Why does the UN have to be the only choice? The world existed before the UN. The fact that it is the "only game in town" at the moment doesnt mean that it has to remain that way.

Why not a broader (worldwide) version of NATO?

Especially if you dont even try looking for them. I am unwilling to settle for the current situation (UN) if I have a choice. I think we can do better.

They are closer to perfect than all other ideologies I have seen so far.

Unless the foundation includes respect for self determination of all people, the rest doesnt matter. The foundation itself is corrupt. That is why it has to be torn down and rebuilt.

So it is better to support ALL dictators everywhere? That makes no sense.

Hypocrisy is irrelevant. The fact that you cant stop ALL rapists doesnt mean you should not stop the ones you can. it is a war of attrition.

Pakistan is not in a transitional stage, it is in a state of DE-evolution back into a totalitarian government. It was a democracy at one time, but the military seized power.

Cooperating with the unelected government is hardly the best method to make them give up power.

Why? How does feeding the non-elected government make them more likely to leave?

Why? Whats the difference if the UN is the framework or if some unofficial alliance is the framework?

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Because Nato is not law. It is merely a treaty between nations. Treaties can become basis or frameworks for laws but are not laws themselves. I suppose that Nato could be used to police international law but it has no structures to enable the enactment of laws or act as a judiciary. To incorporate those structures would change Nato so radically that it would more closely resemble the UN than itself.


I think we may be arguing at cross purposes.

My argument includes the premise that international law is a good thing to be encouraged, improved and expanded upon.

Your argument (if I`ve got you right) is that international law (as it is currently framed and understood) is inherrently flawed as it offers the same protections to democracies and non-democracies alike. You would agree with the idea (I think) that all international law should be binned and new laws drafted starting with an enshrinement of self-determination. And that non-democratic nations would enjoy none of the protections under these laws until they had become democratic. Have I got that right?

Global self determination is a noble goal, I agree but how best to achieve it? Our argument is less about UN/no UN/new&betterUN and more about engagement versus confrontation. Do you agree?


Your analogy is poor. A better one would be:

The fact that you intend to arrest and punish some rapists means you must not aid and abet other rapes


By linking aid/cooperation to improvements in goverance

__________________
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Marx (G.)