VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 09:43:13 03/28/03 Fri
Author: Goktimus Prime
Subject: U.S.U.N.

Check this story out.

Here are some of my thoughts on this...

...the mission of the organization as "the proliferation of peace and international economic, social, and humanitarian progress through deference to the U.S."

This smells a lot like the US government attempting to establish a form of international imperialism. Perhaps we should start addressing the US President as "Palpatine" now?

Ideals of economic, social and humanitarian progress are fine, but the line "through deference to the U.S." really sounds like a mild form of world domination.

But the most disturbing thing is this..
"...unlike the U.N., these missions will not be compromised by the threat of opposition by lesser nations."

What the--?!
First of all, I find the use of the term "lesser nations" to be offensive. It implies that greatness is directly related to a country's wealth. Just because other nations aren't as rich as the United States, doesn't mean that they're not as equally entitled to having an opinion and stating them on an international forum. This kind of statement flies in the face of the ideals of liberty, freedom and equality. The USUN charter seems to be based on the philosophy of establishing world peace by defaulting the opinions of the United States as being paramount, infallable and unquestionable -- at least by "lesser nations."

So... it seems that under the USUN regime, only countries with great wealth will be able to have any form of an opinion, and poorer nations will be stripped of their right to challenge the will of the United States. Where's the freedom and democracy in this?

Some of you may think that I'm just being reflexively anti-US on this, but I'm not. I read this article a few nights ago and I've been thinking about it for a while to come to this conclusion. Even *if* the United States had the best intentions for the rest of the world and made some really good decisions to help other countries, the fact is that in a world where we're supposed to respect the ideals of freedom and democracy, how on Earth can we possibly say something as totalitarian as "threat of opposition by lesser nations."? Even if the US vehemently disagrees with the opinions of its poorer neighbours, it doesn't mean that they are not entitled to those opinions and entitled to express those opinions.

Imagine if your government outlawed suffrage for the poor and only allowed people making of a certain minimum wage bracket -- say upper middle class onwards -- the right to vote, and everybody else from lower middle class and the working classes were stripped of their right to vote. In other words, only the rich were given the right to exercise democracy.

Alright, this is how democracy started in the United States when George Washington became president of the U.S., but since then, so much has happened. Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and later, all American citizens were given the right to vote, regardless of race, gender or creed. Imagine if the US government were to only allow upper-class white men between the age of 25-46 to vote in today's age.

We're seeing a similar situation occuring on an international scale with this USUN.

Look at this comment...
"The official U.S.U.N. language is English. The official religion is Christianity."

Again -- it's so blatantly pro-American and exclusive of other nations. The United Nations as it is, has seven official languages and no official religion (although the Vatican does observe UN proceedings as the Holy See, but it holds no official power, merely a presence). Again, where is the international democracy and liberty here?

It's basically a form of American imperialism. Whereas the United Nations was formed by several countries after WWII - primarily the Allied nations (US, UK, France, Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc) and has since tried to accomodate the views and opinions of nearly two hundred nations which are its chartered members, the USUN is formed by only one nation, the United States, and does not seem to take into account the needs and opinions of any other country. It seems to be a case of, "this is how we think the world should be run, and everybody else better like it!"

It's a very Decepticon philosophy, isn't it? What was it Megatron once said? Ah yes... "Peace through tyranny."

How is this tyranny? Let's look at the dictionary definition of the word tyranny (and no, let's not bicker about everybody's own personal definition of the word, otherwise we'll be here forever):

The dictionary defines tyranny as, "A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler."

Here, the USUN is vesting itself with absolute power controlled by a single absolute dictator (since they are dictating the rest of the world to comply by their standards) - the United States of America. The fact that they would go to war regardless of international opinion and the will of the United Nations, shows that the US regards its own power as being absolute.

Now, Americans can argue, "well if you don't like it, bite us. We're America. We're rich. We're powerful. Our authority is absolute." And to a good extent, this is true. The US launched this attack against Iraq without UN approval for one very true reason -- there is NOTHING that the UN can do to stop the US. But at the same time, this makes Americans look very hypocritical. The United States is a nation founded on principles of democracy and freedom. It is a country that has established an international reputation for supporting and defending the ideals of freedom and democracy -- a reputation that was consolidated in two world wars where the United States led the Allied Nations in a stand to protect democracy and freedom. And it is true that the US was the hero of these wars, that without their aide, we would have fallen to the evil of dictators like Nazi Germany.

But now the US is turning about and in an effort to defeat dictators that it doesn't like, is in effect, becoming one big world dictator. In order to defend American sovereignty, they are willing to throw away the democratic rights of other nations and to restrict their freedom and liberty. Every country has a right to defend its own sovereignty, but not at the expense of the freedom and democracy of another nation. That's oppression.

The United States is the richest and most powerful country in the world. Until now, it has generally used this power in a reasonably responsible manner: to basically defend international peace and freedom with varying levels of success and failure. But to establish an authoritarian body such as the USUN is a shameless abuse of its wealth and power -- and be assured that wealth alone cannot protect anyone from retaliation.

One statement from Dick Cheney that really pissed me off personally was this, "Really, I have no idea what we were doing sacrificing all that power and autonomy in exchange for a couple of lousy troops from New Zealand."

Some comments in response to that one are:

(1) The US is 'sacrificing' power and autonomy because it supposedly believes in democracy and freedom. In a free democracy, we respect the rights and opinions of all people, rich or poor. Sure, democracy would work a LOT smoother if only an elite group were allowed to vote, but that wouldn't be a free democracy.

(2) As far as I'm aware, the US has received NO military support from New Zealand. NZ Prime Minister Helen Clarke has remained steadfastly opposed to the war in Iraq. However, Australian Prime Minister John Howard has pledged support for the United States and Australia has committed troops and naval vessels. I get a feeling that that comment was aimed at Aussie soldiers, which gives me the shits because first of all, Australia is one of the FEW allies of the United States that has not only been supporting its campaign against Iraq from the very outset, but has also committed military forces. Australian soldiers who are risking their lives for our American allies. How DARE Cheney call these brave men and women "lousy" when they have heeded President Bush's call to arms. Has he forgotten that it was the HMAS Kenimbla which recently intercepted and seized an enemy ship disguised as a tug boat, loaded with sea-mines and depth charges? Charges which would have severly damaged or even destroyed Coalition boats if they were deployed. Has he forgotten that Australian SAS troops were among the first wave of special forces soldiers deployed even *before* the war was officially declared? Whilst the movement of US and British troops have been widely televised, the movement of Australian soldiers is currently classified at a level where the media are NOT reporting where our troops are, and the Prime Minister is not at liberty to say where they are and what they are doing. Does Cheney KNOW how much that grieves the friends and families of Aussie soldiers who are behind enemy lines? Just yesterday I drove past some open fields, and I saw an Australian jet fly by from the nearby RAAF base and deploy fifteen paratroopers. Obviously RAAF personnel are currently training for deployment in the nearby future to reinforce Coalition forces. Australian soldiers are fighting this war because the Australian government wants to help the US government. The lives of Australian soldiers are at risk each day this war progresses, and it really boils my bloody when Dick Cheney not only gets their nationality wrong, but also has the audacity to call them "lousy." Especially considering that Australian soldiers are the best shock troopers in the world, holding the record for having the highest kill ratio amongst ALL soldiers during WWII. Dick Cheney, you bloody ingrate.

I know that not all Americans are as ungrateful towards the Australian involvement in this war as Dick Cheney is. Although John Howard was unable to join Tony Blair and George Bush at Camp David to discuss further war plans, George Bush does regularly phone Prime Minister Howard and I have heard the President mention and thank Australia for our contribution in this war effort.

“I have sworn... eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man” - Thomas Jefferson.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.