Why does no one care that the UN is corrupt except the USA

Why does no one care?

Total Votes:

[ 0 ]

This poll closed on December 5, 2004.
No longer accepting new votes.

[ninjabastard jr]

danjel

International anarchy is a good thing, right?</sarcasm>

"Why does everyone hate us?!?"

Lord.

International anarchy is the idea that there is no central government in the interstate system. Due to sovereignty, States are the primary actor and are rational in pursuit of their goals. This results in states gaining power and balancing power by alliances. There's way more to realism, but take a damn class.

[danjel]

ninjabastard jr

danjel

International anarchy is a good thing, right?</sarcasm>

"Why does everyone hate us?!?"

Lord.

International anarchy is the idea that there is no central government in the interstate system. Due to sovereignty, States are the primary actor and are rational in pursuit of their goals. This results in states gaining power and balancing power by alliances. There's way more to realism, but take a damn class.

That's all nice and good. But that picture is the result of your theories regarding international anarchy.

Is that what you want every couple of years? Because that's essentially what you're advocating.

[ninjabastard jr]

danjel

ninjabastard jr

danjel

International anarchy is a good thing, right?</sarcasm>

"Why does everyone hate us?!?"

Lord.

International anarchy is the idea that there is no central government in the interstate system. Due to sovereignty, States are the primary actor and are rational in pursuit of their goals. This results in states gaining power and balancing power by alliances. There's way more to realism, but take a damn class.

That's all nice and good. But that picture is the result of your theories regarding international anarchy.

Is that what you want every couple of years? Because that's essentially what you're advocating.

International anarcy= no government. How would the UN prevent 9/11? Terrorism is a result of being in the worst bargaining position. You're not even a state.

Failed states are seen more as a cause of terrorism nowadays. Before the US and others didn't care what happened in another country because that's their problem. Now the US has decided to give more foriegn aid as in Africa since the US has a self-interest in less terrorism.

These are all being done by a state not an international government.

[danjel]

Kazuma

My response with "a single quippy line" is admittance that your points are not worthy of greater response. When you have something of substance to say I will treat it with the respect that it deserves.

Nah. Let's face facts, Kazuma. Your arguments are the rantings of a tired old hag.

Quote:

No it explicitly states that the States are bound to subordinatly to Federal law and Federal agreements. Therefore, there is no evidence to support your arguement that international agreements are above the power of the state, as in the actor on the international stage.

See where it said "treaties"? Need me to bold it again?

Quote:

This is laughable ad hominem because I have never relied on questionable or shoddy sources to back up my arugements.

You know, I think you're right. I don't often see you referencing anything at all. Research/reading not your thing?

[danjel]

ninjabastard jr

danjel

ninjabastard jr

danjel

International anarchy is a good thing, right?</sarcasm>

"Why does everyone hate us?!?"

Lord.

International anarchy is the idea that there is no central government in the interstate system. Due to sovereignty, States are the primary actor and are rational in pursuit of their goals. This results in states gaining power and balancing power by alliances. There's way more to realism, but take a damn class.

That's all nice and good. But that picture is the result of your theories regarding international anarchy.

Is that what you want every couple of years? Because that's essentially what you're advocating.

International anarcy= no government. How would UN change 9/11?

No government == no controls on abuse.

No controls on abuse == disenfranchisement of people and poverty.

Disenfranchisement of people == dissatisfaction.

Dissatisfaction == response.

You see? it's not that hard to think of situations as more complex than black and white singular connected concepts.

[ninjabastard jr]

danjel

ninjabastard jr

danjel

ninjabastard jr

danjel

International anarchy is a good thing, right?</sarcasm>

"Why does everyone hate us?!?"

Lord.

International anarchy is the idea that there is no central government in the interstate system. Due to sovereignty, States are the primary actor and are rational in pursuit of their goals. This results in states gaining power and balancing power by alliances. There's way more to realism, but take a damn class.

That's all nice and good. But that picture is the result of your theories regarding international anarchy.

Is that what you want every couple of years? Because that's essentially what you're advocating.

International anarcy= no government. How would UN change 9/11?

No government == no controls on abuse.

No controls on abuse == disenfranchisement of people and poverty.

Disenfranchisement of people == dissatisfaction.

Dissatisfaction == response.

You see? it's not that hard to think of situations as more complex than black and white singular connected concepts.

You're going to have to ask states to give up their sovereignty then, something no state in its right mind would do.

[danjel]

ninjabastard jr

danjel

ninjabastard jr

danjel

ninjabastard jr

danjel

International anarchy is a good thing, right?</sarcasm>

"Why does everyone hate us?!?"

Lord.

International anarchy is the idea that there is no central government in the interstate system. Due to sovereignty, States are the primary actor and are rational in pursuit of their goals. This results in states gaining power and balancing power by alliances. There's way more to realism, but take a damn class.

That's all nice and good. But that picture is the result of your theories regarding international anarchy.

Is that what you want every couple of years? Because that's essentially what you're advocating.

International anarcy= no government. How would UN change 9/11?

No government == no controls on abuse.

No controls on abuse == disenfranchisement of people and poverty.

Disenfranchisement of people == dissatisfaction.

Dissatisfaction == response.

You see? it's not that hard to think of situations as more complex than black and white singular connected concepts.

You're going to have to ask states to give up their sovereignty then, something no state in its right mind would do.

Because September 11's aren't all that bad for governments, right? I mean it practically led to the Republicans taking the government.

That's GREAT! We need MORE September 11's!

[ninjabastard jr]

danjel

ninjabastard jr

danjel

ninjabastard jr

danjel

ninjabastard jr

danjel

International anarchy is a good thing, right?</sarcasm>

"Why does everyone hate us?!?"

Lord.

International anarchy is the idea that there is no central government in the interstate system. Due to sovereignty, States are the primary actor and are rational in pursuit of their goals. This results in states gaining power and balancing power by alliances. There's way more to realism, but take a damn class.

That's all nice and good. But that picture is the result of your theories regarding international anarchy.

Is that what you want every couple of years? Because that's essentially what you're advocating.

International anarcy= no government. How would UN change 9/11?

No government == no controls on abuse.

No controls on abuse == disenfranchisement of people and poverty.

Disenfranchisement of people == dissatisfaction.

Dissatisfaction == response.

You see? it's not that hard to think of situations as more complex than black and white singular connected concepts.

You're going to have to ask states to give up their sovereignty then, something no state in its right mind would do.

Because September 11's aren't all that bad for governments, right? I mean it practically led to the Republicans taking the government.

That's GREAT! We need MORE September 11's!

What the ******** are you even talking about? I said there's no central world government. You're not going to be changing that since states act in their own self-interest. Even neoliberalism conceeds this point, it just focuses on long-term gains instead of short-term gains between states.

[Kazuma]

danjel

Quote:

No it explicitly states that the States are bound to subordinatly to Federal law and Federal agreements. Therefore, there is no evidence to support your arguement that international agreements are above the power of the state, as in the actor on the international stage.

See where it said "treaties"? Need me to bold it again?

Nope you've done enough creative bolding today. You clearly do not understand the purpose of the supremacy clause or refuse to admit that you are wrong.

danjel

Quote:

This is laughable ad hominem because I have never relied on questionable or shoddy sources to back up my arugements.

You know, I think you're right. I don't often see you referencing anything at all. Research/reading not your thing?

Probably just because you don't bother to look, or simply refuse to admit. I consistanly refer to international relations texts, and news sources as I have in this thread, journals such as Foreign Affairs and Washington Quarterly, I have referenced to articles in Foreign Policy magazine, works by actual political scientists or authorities in the field such as Huntington and Kissinger, or respectable news outlets such as the Washington Post...

Not all of us are like you who rely on the same tired old SMH to engage in propaganda.

[danjel]

ninjabastard jr

You're not going to be changing that since states act in their own self-interest.

No. They don't. Many countries actually have realised that a vision longer than the current electoral term will actually benefit their countries. The countries involved in the EU for example have realised that there is benefit in working together for the common good.

And this is the whole point. In order to be able to protect ourselves, we have to take a slightly broader view of the world than our own backyards. The sooner all countries realise this, and feel free to work together, the sooner we will actually start moving forward.

Until then, the US and anyone else who subscribes to Kazuma's "we're the bestest!!!1" philosophy will keep bringing September 11's on themselves. I suppose it suits their political purposes, but it's really rather disgusting to sacrifice your countrymen in this way.

[Kazuma]

danjel

The countries involved in the EU for example have realised that there is benefit in working together for the common good.

International Relations

An example of minimal realism.

Quote:

The theory of minimal realism holds that non-hegemonic states will ally against the hegemon in order to prevent their own interests from being subsumed by the hegemon's interests.

Less common good rather then percieved common interest. Certainly enough to cast doubt on your assumption that it is specifically for the common good.

danjel

Until then, the US and anyone else who subscribes to Kazuma's "we're the bestest!!!1" philosophy will keep bringing September 11's on themselves.

Note how danjel jumps to wild conclusions about, and twists around, what I actually *have* said about the reality of the international system to suggest that I have made a values statment regarding it and to argue his points.

What is disgusting is that he can't manage to argue something without pathetic ad hominem and distortions.

[TheIronDuke]

Kazuma, your hypocrisy astounds me. Accusing danjel of twisting and spinning facts, as well as resorting to ad hominem attacks...and then doing the exact same thing. I applaud you.

[Kazuma]

TheIronDuke

Kazuma, your hypocrisy astounds me. Accusing danjel of twisting and spinning facts, as well as resorting to ad hominem attacks...and then doing the exact same thing. I applaud you.

Where have I twisted and spun facts?

Some examples would be nice.

[ninjabastard jr]

danjel

ninjabastard jr

You're not going to be changing that since states act in their own self-interest.

No. They don't. Many countries actually have realised that a vision longer than the current electoral term will actually benefit their countries. The countries involved in the EU for example have realised that there is benefit in working together for the common good.

What if you're not in a position to work for the common good? The only ones that are advocating this are wealthy western democracies.

Quote:

And this is the whole point. In order to be able to protect ourselves, we have to take a slightly broader view of the world than our own backyards. The sooner all countries realise this, and feel free to work together, the sooner we will actually start moving forward.

That's a rather nice view. Igonoring the fact that US gives protection to you guys and the EU.

Quote:

Until then, the US and anyone else who subscribes to Kazuma's "we're the bestest!!!1" philosophy will keep bringing September 11's on themselves. I suppose it suits their political purposes, but it's really rather disgusting to sacrifice your countrymen in this way.

You're saying we should have appeased Bin Laden? We should have pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia, stop sanctions on Iraq, and abandoned Isreal? Basically we give in to terrorists? That only sets a precedent in which they will do more of this blackmailing. Good job.

[Lord Clavy]

TheIronDuke

Kazuma, your hypocrisy astounds me. Accusing danjel of twisting and spinning facts, as well as resorting to ad hominem attacks...and then doing the exact same thing. I applaud you.

And the fact that either party has to point this out is beyond me. It isn't like political discussion hasn't relied on doing just that for years. Besides, that's how almost any debate on here is. "You distort the facts." "No you distort the facts."

That's why I only come in here for a good laugh now and then.