|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
U.S. threatens to pull out of U.N. |
Current rating: 0 |
by Jack Stan
(No verified email address) |
23 Jun 2002
Modified: 24 Jun 2002 |
|
NEW YORK-- Washington will pull out United Nations unless Americans are given immunity from prosecution by the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal. |
|
Most countries back the new International Criminal Court (ICC), scheduled to begin its work July 1, but the Bush has pulled U.S. endorsement of the ICC – arguing its citizens may face prosecution. American diplomats have presented the UN Security Council with a draft resolution demanding guaranteed immunity at the ICC. Critics say Washington is trying to set its self above the law in the new International Criminal Court. 'Inexcusable and indefensible' "I think the United States government has really reached a low point in regard to human rights as an aspect of its foreign policy," said Richard Dicker, director of the international justice program at Human Rights Watch. "To be trying to broaden or extend the scope for impunity if people commit these crimes, it's inexcusable and indefensible." UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on Washington not to abandon U.N. He said the new court will prosecute suspects only if their own governments fail to take action. But Washington insists on immunity for Americans, and it refused to back down during a debate Friday. Maybe the U.N. should make a clean break from the rogue U.S. fascists and move the U.N. to Canada or the Netherlands or anywhere else. The world should prepare for the inevitable action that will be needed to protect the world from the U.S. fascists. |
|
THE U.N. DOES NOT MATTER |
by EVIL EMPIRE
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
23 Jun 2002
|
You clearly don't realize our purposes in supporting the UN. That is to say, you honestly believe that the UN is an altrustic device, and hence, you're confused. You probably also believe that WTO is designed to facilitate "free" and equitable trade (when, in fact, "WTO" stands for "We're Taking Over"). You likely also believe that the Population Fund is altrusitic (when, instead, it's a device by which to use eugenic policies to depopulate regions like Africa, which have little value in a "Global Economy" construct).
Some facts: USA/CA/AUS/EU have collaborated to corporately colonialize the remaining nations on Earth. UN is merely a device (like many others) to affect and enforce policies that USA, as a nation state, cannot. All the altrustic bullshit UN churns out is exactly that; we control it, and if it doesn't do precisely as we wish, we simply ignore it (generally) or, more frequently, drain any power its resolutions have.
Here's the world in ten years: a European coaltion of nations with a common defense, ringed by a comon missile defense, against which no nation will effectively have the capability to wage war. That coalition will dictate to the remaining nations EVERYTHING. Furthermore, that coalition will gradually close its borders. That's where we're going. Go to nato.int and europa.int and take a close look at those maps (and projected maps that anticipate the future structures of those orgs). What you'll see there is an empire populated (on the mean) by 97% Europeans [when taken as a whole].
Welcome to the Thousand-Year Reich. And whilst the underclasses throw rocks and bottles (or even use low-grade automatic weapons), the Reich's coaltion will be armed with space-based weapons (in, say, 25 years). Game over. By and by, that coalition will strangle the Third World, unchecked, and mercilessly. And this will come to pass, over this or that UN programme's objections.
As an American, I see nothing wrong with this, either. Idealistic, confused ideas about equality aside, Earth has only so many resources. Either our children drink the blood of others or, those others will drink ours. Welcome to reality; how many children have to die to fill an American gas tank? Or, maybe a better question is this: does it matter? For more than 50 years, CIA (and related agencies) have worked tirelessly to ensure that you have an edge. They've lied, stolen, cheated, and killed for it. And if you feel bad about that, you should move to one of those Third World nations and join the wretched who live therein. Your children won't thank you for it, though.
Oh, idealism is wonderful, until the oil runs out, and you can't get basic goods because trucks that once delivered them to your local town can no longer roll. Okay, until your supermarket shelves are empty. At that point, you'll be asking yourself "Why doesn't the CIA overthow whomever it needs to."
The problem with idealists is that they think as proletariats and not as rulers. For one moment, imagine yourself USA's head honcho. What steps would you take (what limits would you go to) to ensure USA primacy? Trade barriers? Spying to ensure that we snag contracts from foreign competitors? Murder? If your answer to any of the three aforementioned question is "no," you're not qualified for the job. And it's not a question of Republican or Democrat or Right or Left, for, when it comes to such questions (and economic realities), wings and philsophies are bullshit. Maciavelli and Hobbes were only restating tenets that have existed in statecraft and governance since city states first arose (and maybe a lot earlier than that).
Think as a ruler and not as a subject. The world looks different from that vantage point, I assure you. |
|
Response to "Evil Empire" |
by JW
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Jun 2002
|
Much of what you say is true, "Evil Empire", and most of the rest of it has the ring of truth.
You seem to believe that America and its European allies comprise an evil empire, and that the various international organizations they have created are designed for purposes of world domination, not altruism. In that I would largely agree with you.
But then you say that you see nothing wrong with this scenario, and you urge us to think as rulers rather than as proletariat.
If you see nothing wrong with the scenario, why do you describe it as an "evil empire", a "Thousand-Year Reich"?
More importantly, are you aware that you reason as you do because you've been conditioned to think of life as a zero-sum game: "For me to win, you have to lose. For me to live, you have to die."
I submit that it's possible for individuals, communities, and cultures to think differently, to think in terms of creating win-win situations. This would require a greater respect than we have now for human life, and it would also require, eventually, some form of population control. But right now the world contains enough resources to supply everyone's basic needs, and science/technology could be harnessed for human good rather than for world domination.
Your scenario is more likely than mine to take place. But mine is possible. |
