From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat May 03 2003 - 21:20:08 MDT
Brett Paatsch writes
> Lee Corbin writes:
>
> > Yes, the U.N. has become quite corrupt. Is it time for it to go?
>
> It might be preferably for the UN to go. It was only as strong
> as the good faith of the permanent security council members. Whether
> it was moral or not there is widespread perception that the Iraq war
> was illegal. The American government is widely feared and respected
> but not trusted. In my opinion this distrust is now endemic in the
> developed world as well. To rebuild the trust it may be necessary to
> let the US citizens (who elect the US government) see and come to
> understand the depth of unease that prevails amongst citizens of the
> developed world.
That's one solution: Americans should be more aware of others *feelings*.
> In my opinion the distrust is not anti-American. It is the distrust of
> the disenfranchised and the disempowered.
Perhaps a better solution would be to enfranchise the rest of the
world. As the U.S. is the world's pre-eminent military power,
why shouldn't everyone have an equal say in what is done with it?
Can you think of a logical reason why someone living, say, south
of an imaginary line in the American west should not be able to
vote, while someone living just a little bit to the north of it
can vote?
> It is the same sort of sentiment that caused an earlier generation
> of Americans to go to war to assert their rights not to be taxed
> (governed) without being represented.
Exactly. Just because they don't happen to be living in North
America, why shouldn't a peasant in China or some extremely poor
person in sub-Saharan Africa have an equal say?
So the solution may just be for the U.S. to take over the world.
Hold on: this is not as evil as it sounds; after all, the peasant
in China and the starving man in Africa would *not* have to pay
any taxes to support that military: they aren't rich enough, and
fall below the poverty line. Not only that, but they'd be
entitled to their fair share of the pie, and a safety net
provided by the (taxed) richer regions, like the U.S., Australia,
and Europe.
Then they wouldn't be either disenfranchised nor powerless,
and their *feelings* would be so assuaged.
> Personally I would have preferred President Bush to have revoked
> the Charter before invading Iraq. In the long term perhaps that would
> have harmed the US reputation less (the US government reputation).
You have to understand that there are two kinds of reputation
involved here, Brett. One is the highly ephemeral dismissal
of the United States that one is likely to hear at a European
cocktail party or academic gathering ("barbarians", "hmmpt",
"insufferable"), and the other is the real fear inspired in
the hearts of terrorists and others who think about taking
action against the West.
You seem to be completely ignoring the latter. If enough people
in the West were like you, then they'd elect a lot of leaders
who would actually cause the ruffians of the world to despise
the U.S. *more*. There would be *more* terrorism, more whining,
more anger translated into action---not less! And then all the
people like you would wring your hands even more, and moan "Oh,
why do they hate us?". Well, they hate you because (a) you
have more than they do (b) you make them feel inferior.
> > However, I think that the trouble with the U.S. leaving the U.N.
> > would be that it would play right into the hands of America's
> > enemies. "See! They're so out of control that they won't even
> > talk anymore!"
>
> I think the problem is worse than that now Lee. It's not that the
> US government won't talk that I think people outside of the states
> fear, it is that they can't be trusted when they do. It's that
> the US signature on a treaty may not be worth anything.
How ironic that North Korea now wants a non-aggression pact with the U.S.
Explain that!
> I think this perception is now widespread amongst many of the citizens
> of the developed countries of the West. I don't trust the US government
> or the Australian government). I am sure many intelligent US citizens
> don't trust it either.
What is important is whether you can trust the U.S. to come
down hard on malefactors like Saddam Hussein; believe me,
when all is said and done, it's actions like that, not a lot
of words, that matter.
> > Yet there comes a time when, whether it's trade negotiations or
> > human rights issues, Americans should indeed worry about what the
> > rest of the world will do. Allowing the French and Russians to
> > set the standard for human rights, or allowing a lot of America-
> > haters to weaken international trade is not in anyone's real
> > interest.
>
> No one nation can set the standards to the satisfaction of the
> nationals of a majority of other nations. This is not essentially
> an American problem. It's a representation problem.
Well, I proposed a solution for that.
> Without the UN any single powerful country disenfranchises the
> citizens of the other countries. That is not a formula for
> stability or dare I say "extropy".
If it's *stability* you are after, things are much more
stable now than ever before. One country practically
never invades another anymore, and when a major country
such as the U.S. does, it's after years and years of
negotiation and indecisiveness.
Lee
P.S. Several paragraphs in the above were completely ironical.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 03 2003 - 21:31:14 MDT