Article

2004-05-01 Europe

A Fantastic Article defending Unilateralism-From the Wilson Quaterly!

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Ernest Brown 2004-05-01 9:21:34 PM|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Referring link needs to be fixed.

Posted by Pappy 2004-05-01 12:17:23 AM|| 2004-05-01 12:17:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Economic and product standardization between countries is usually a good thing because that kind of limited regulation assists the market and results in prosperity and consumer confidence.

I would fight the US joining a democracy of democracies if the other members were committed to socialist economic policies. As for joining an uber-government that included Kim, Castro, Chavez and a parade of other kooks, that's a non-starter.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-05-01 12:46:24 AM|| 2004-05-01 12:46:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 double unilateralism....? Ice cream me thinks.

Posted by Lucky 2004-05-01 1:26:38 AM|| 2004-05-01 1:26:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 -- the president announced the withdrawal of the United States from an important missile treaty with Russia.--

No, we withdrew from a treaty which was signed by something that wasn't there anymore.

Let's throw some more into the "international law" mix, sharia - via Silent Running:

here

Posted by Anonymous2U 2004-05-01 1:32:41 AM|| 2004-05-01 1:32:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 From a2u's link:
"Islam, on the other hand, deeply respects vows, treaties and agreements and warns against the serious consequences of their violation, Dissouki averred."

This is so much bull,Sharia says it is absolutly alright to lie to,steal from,break contracts,enslave,impose unfair taxes,and murder unbelievers(i.e.anybody not a Muslem).In other words if International Law is based on Sharia,and you are not a Muslem you are so screwed.

Posted by Anonymous4698 2004-05-01 7:44:56 AM|| 2004-05-01 7:44:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 as long as americacan believe in the constitution we would never be part of a world govt..

Posted by Dan 2004-05-01 3:04:16 PM|| 2004-05-01 3:04:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 I'm not certain, why you point me out specifically in in this -- I must be among the people of Rantburg who have *least* used either 'unilateral' or 'multilateral' as an expression.

As to the article, could someone atleast point it out specifically? The link points to the whole list of essays, and since you don't even specify the article's name, it's rather difficult to read in its entirety. Thanks.

---

On the whole I tend to agree with the fragment of the article I've read.

"as long as americacan believe in the constitution we would never be part of a world govt.."

Some people (I think ones that do believe in the constitution) have claimed UN resolutions as both a moral and legal justification for the invasion of Iraq -- that automatically places UN in the position of world government with its resolutions being the law, and the US army as its policing body.

The G5 would never feel this being a world government ofcourse since it can't touch them at all -- and the smaller nations rarely feel it since they have to fall to the G5's (especially the US) disfavour before anything that the UN decides seriously affects them. And in the case they fall to the G5's disfavour the existence or not of UN is hardly likely to save them.

In short, there does exist a nominal (metaphorically) "world government", except it's so weak that it doesn't even dare to bear the name. And it's also non-democratic ofcourse.

:-) Perhaps, Dan, you mean that USA would never become part of a world government in which it wouldn't wield a veto.

The same way that the Mullahs of Iran would never accept any Iranian government in which they wouldn't wield likewise a veto for each piece of legislation. :-)

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-05-01 6:26:57 PM|| 2004-05-01 6:26:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Yeah Aris, compare the USA and the Mullahs of Iran and "smile" while ya do it. Ya miserable shite.

Posted by docob 2004-05-01 7:49:41 PM|| 2004-05-01 7:49:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Actually, you do more then compare, you equate. Unbelievable.

Posted by docob 2004-05-01 7:52:01 PM|| 2004-05-01 7:52:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 You know, the usual point of a smiley is to indicate that something is a joke. Or a semi-joke atleast.

Besides, I've been accused of being a troll long enough. I've started to feel that when people intentionally mention my name in a thread without clear reason, I'll let them down if I can't provide them with atleast one sentence to insult me over.

But if you want a more intellectual and less evasive response, I'll clarify yet again (and once and for all) that the US is a hundred times more benevolent a despot than the mullahs of Iran, or the Communists of China, or the Baathists of Syria, or the Kims of North Korea and so forth and so forth. Or even of Putin of Russia.

But the question of benevolence is a subtly different one than the question of despotism -- in a world without an effective democratically elected world government, the untouchable and uncontrolled US does indeed possess the role of a benevolent despot in its mostly arbitrary interventions -- as seen in Kosovo, as seen in Iraq.

And as Dan mentioned and I expanded on US will never enter an world government it won't be able to control, never cede that position of despotism.

You are not the only despot in the world ofcourse, just the most far-reaching one. As I just said Russia is even more strict and far less benevolent a despot in most of the sphere of the former USSR, even as China is a despot (and just as bad if not worse a one) in its own sphere.

Cheers.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-05-01 9:13:05 PM|| 2004-05-01 9:13:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 According to Webster's, a despot is one "exercising power abusively, oppressively, or tyrannically".
So once more Aris follows insult with passive-aggressive non-apology. But hey, why not. Many around here seem to buy your pseudo-friendly bullshit.

Posted by docob 2004-05-01 9:47:57 PM|| 2004-05-01 9:47:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=67&q=despot

Your own problem if you've never heard of benevolent despotism. Google it up.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-05-01 9:50:49 PM|| 2004-05-01 9:50:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Here you go for benevolent despotism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despotism

Hmm, absolute rulers using their power to institute reforms in the political and social structure of the areas they control -- doesn't it remind you a tiny bit of what's being currently attempted in Iraq?

And it'd be better if you followed a tactic where you argued more about the content of what I say than about the way I said them. If I'm rude or "aggressive" then boohoohoo, I'm not the first or worst in this forum in this respect. If I'm wrong or mistaken, then correct me, don't criticize my style. And if we differ in interpretations then discuss.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-05-01 9:56:22 PM|| 2004-05-01 9:56:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 I've reviewed post #7, and I fail to see any reference to "benevolence", just a direct equation betweem the governments of the USA and Iran. If you throw a rhetorical bomb like that, you shouldn't be surprised when someone reacts in kind.
However, in reviewing my own posts, I see too much of a reliance on ad hominem attacks, which just muddy the water. I'll try to tone it down a bit.

Posted by docob 2004-05-02 9:08:45 AM|| 2004-05-02 9:08:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 There was no mention of benevolence in #7, then again there was no mention of despotism either. In post #7 I make a semi-joking comparison to the way veto is wielded by the mullahs in non-democratic Iran and the way the veto is used by the US (and France and Russia and UK and China) in the non-democratic "world government" of the United Nations.

But I concede that my statement did feel semi-trollish. Sorry for that. I did mean it more like humour however, instigated by "For Aris of course," of the original poster, which I'm still not entirely certain what he meant by.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-05-02 8:52:42 PM|| 2004-05-02 8:52:42 PM|| Front Page Top

20:52 Aris Katsaris
09:08 docob
02:28 Jen
02:18 Atomic Conspiracy
01:22 Mr. Davis
00:53 Mark Espinola
00:40 A Jackson
00:04 Anon666
00:03 B
00:00 Edward Yee
23:56 B
23:55 Edward Yee
23:52 Bomb-a-rama
23:48 Phil Fraering
23:28 B
23:19 B
23:13 RWV
23:12 B
23:12 joe
23:08 B
22:56 RWV
22:53 Frank G
22:49 Frank G
22:47 Aris Katsaris