When they kick at your front door, how you gonna come? With your hands on your head or on the trigger of your gun?
The first act of any tyranical regime is to disarm the populace. One of the things which sets the United States apart from most of the rest of the world - more even than the other provisions of our Constitution - is that our Republic has built into it a tolerance of and endorsement of the right of our citizens to be armed. That right has been qualified and whittled down a bit more than I'm comfortable with over the years, but in principle it still survives.…
Article comments
26 - Deano
Joey - I highly recommend you actually read what the conference is about. It is not about disarming the United States or un-arming your citizenry. Strange as it might seem, fucking over America is not always the UN's purpose in life...sometimes they just like to hear themselves talk (admittedly some of the members do like to fuck over America whenever they can but that's generally because they are trying to distract from their own actions and stupidities...and there are a lot of them hiding out in the UN General Assembly. That is the price you pay for being a superpower. Get over it.)
I will also note that it is a conference (you know - the exchange of ideas) and has no weight of law or capability to impose anything upon you. You are not subject to the "laws of the UN" - the UN is not a law-making body. International law is manifest in international treaties primarily and that needs to go through your own government and cannot be imposed upon you except by yourselves or by external force (i.e. a war...and you'd have to lose).
I do think that if it comes down to Dave in his fortified compound holding out against Lord Humungus and his evil minions...well, my money would have to be on Dave.
27 - Dave Nalle
I'd be interested in hearing some real specifics about how the UN efforts are tied into US legislation because I read your Rockwell article and it sounds like the usual rhetorical overreach and it takes a bit of epic linking to tie the two together...not to mention the fact that the article dated back to 2001.
The Rockwell article aside, the legislation does exist, but I believe that it has not yet been passed. It originates in 2001 because that's when the US was one of the 60 nations to sign on to this programme and in compliance with that treaty we agreed to frame and pass that legislation. The threat is real. If this UN programme moves forward we have agreed to take the steps outlined in the Rockwell article to comply with it. It would still have to pass Congress, but one never knows how that will come out, especially with the possibility of Democrats taking over one or both houses.
It would be nice if the US could try not to gut collective international efforts which, weak and limited as they are, are genuinely aimed at enhancing collective global security.
I don't think anyone in the US wants to do that. But can you honestly tell me that gun shows and personal sales of firearms within the US have ANY impact on the international trade in small arms?
I recognize that gun owners in the US are psychotically paranoid about their right to bear arms but trying to reduce the number of small arms littering the world's hotspots shouldn't be held hostage to the NRA's vague and unsubstantiated claim of linkage to your right to tote your guns. Strange as it might sound, it's ain't always about you.
It's about us when it effects us negatively, regardless of what good the programme may be doing elsewhere at the same time.
It's also not a great thing for the US when our gun manufacturers are being specifically targeted.
Dave
28 - Dave Nalle
Evil my ass! The UN isn't evil, it's incompetent, bureaucratic, densely political and in the grip of antiquated anti-colonial post-coldwar angst, but its not evil. It's not compenent or focused enough to be evil.
All true. But there ARE people in the UN who are actively evil, and they have more say there than they ought to, through voting blocks and the way committees are formed. I can't see any justification for supporting or cooperating with an organization which is at best corrupt and incompetent and at worst politically opposed to the US and heavily influenced by tyranical states.
Dave
29 - Deano
"there ARE people in the UN who are actively evil, and they have more say there than they ought to, through voting blocks and the way committees are formed"
Yes. The same thing can be said for virtually every government on Earth, including the US.
I'm not telling you to cooperate or support the UN on all things - you obviously do that selectively as fits your interests. Whether the UN can continue in the post-cold war era is a good question. Like it or not, in the absence of any effective alternative, the UN is an important piece in the multilateral international political structure.
The US obviously could "go it alone" but at the cost of alienating a significant number of countries (even more then GWB has already alienated...) that view the UN, however flawed, as an important multilateral forum. In addition you toss out a forum that, albeit flawed, provides a formal mechanism for multilateral diplomacy, one that provides a useful forum for the US in working with its allies and friends around the world. You might just need these people at some point...
Tossing out the UN without any alternative forum stronger then the regional military and economic treaties (i.e NATO, WTO) would probably be a fairly strong indicator to the rest of the world that the US does not feel itself bound by any laws or obligations...my guess is that it would shatter the multilateral strategy that has been pursued by the major powers since WWII and trigger a major arms race among all nations, one that would be aimed at developing deterrance weapons (i.e WMD) since, in the absence of the UN, the only deterrence possible would be from being able to blast your enemies into perdition first.
Or you can continue to muddle along, trying to reform, rebuild or replace the UN, while building an alternative collection of international multilateral structures in parallel to the UN that do work effectively, until the day comes that you can turf the UN painlessly without having half the planet start trying to out-arm the other half...
Have fun with it.
30 - Dave Nalle
As I've said before, I'm for replacing the UN with an international organization which actually works, represents countries on a more sensible basis, and limits the participation of tyranical and genocidal regimes. As time passes it becomes more and more clear that the UN is both too meddlesome and at the same time not really powerful enough to stand on its own and resist corrupting influences, and that kind of defeats the purpose of having it in the first place.
The US obviously could "go it alone" but at the cost of alienating a significant number of countries (even more then GWB has already alienated...) that view the UN, however flawed, as an important multilateral forum.
Given the flawed nature of the UN and the very questionable way many of the member governments behave, it seems sensible to me to strive to bring them up to at least our standards of freedom and government rather than trying to legislate our way down to their inferior standards.
Dave
31 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Deano,
As a young teen, I used to study almanacs (I preferred the World Almanac) and in them, I'd find the list of international organizations that had affiliated with the UN. The UN fascinated me, as it was a construct for a world government that could insure world peace. And I thought that this was a great idea.
Then the Six Day War broke out. That's when I started to come out of my dreams of imaginary world governments and see just what was going on.
It was the failure of U Thant to keep a UN force in the Sinai that allowed Nasser to start on his expansionist and war-making fantasies that spring of 1967 which resulted in the Six Day War. Had U Thant said "no" to Nasser, there would have been no confrontation between Israel and Egypt, and there would have been no war. Period.
Had U Thant stood up to Nasser, as he ought to have to preserve the peace in the region, he would have been roundly denounced as the tool of the "Zionist imperialist lackeys, cabal of Jewish world bankers, and international Jewish communists" or some such nonsense. There would have been calls fo his resignation and all sorts of other unpleasantnesses that the good Burmese gentleman wished to avoid.
U Thant took the easy way out. So, today, there is no Mandelbaum Gate here dividing this city, and no Jordanians shooting from the Old City to the Hebron Road. I get to pray at the Western Wall if I wish, and see full rainbows from end to end in Ma'aleh Ephraim (no folks, there are no pots of gold at the end of the rainbow) or go to pray in Hebron where Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (and allegedly Adam and Eve) are buried.
I'm not complaining. But this did not happen because the UN was doing its job. It is an irony of history that I relish thinking about.
My point? The UN might have stood in the way of nuclear war between the USSR and the USA to a degree, but the real thing that kept the planet from going up in nuclear smoke was the unwillingness of the two super-powers to engage in suicide.
The truth of the matter is that the most successful UN operation that ever took place was the resistance to the invasion of North Korea. This occurred only because the Russians were asleep at the wheel. If the UN were to be disbanded, there is no reason to disband all the international organizations that function today. A concert of nations, similar to the one that kept the peace for a century in Europe, would keep the peace in the world. The corrupt thieves who run the UN now could be dispatched to the hell-holes they have crawled out of to infest New York like two legged cockroaches. And we could go back to arguing over the World Cup
32 - Deano
Believe me Ruvy, I'm under no illusions as to the extremely limited effectiveness of the UN.
I've met a lot of guys tossed into the hotspots over the years, being asked to stand between the combatants with little backup and support and no resources (and no mandate on what to do when it all goes to hell). It is a thankless task that can and does get people killed, mainly due to the UN and its motto of "too little, too late".
33 - Joey
Deano,
You got the talk... but the UN ain't got the walk. Go hang the UN flag out on your doorstep on the 4th and pledge your pledge of faith to it.
Personally, I think the UN no longer serves a useful purpose and hasn't for many a moon.
That's why I believe that the "conversations" being held are ludicris considering some of those seated at the table.
What bothers me is that there are those who take the UN as the embodiment of law (I think you may be in that category). When they have no juristiction over ME, my country, or our freedom. Is that not the case? If so, and if they have no jusistiction over ME, my country, or our freedom, then pack them off to a country/cartel/federation/confederation which wishes to come under the auspices of this governing body.
I'm not one to be placated over my liberties granted by MY constitution. It's that simple. No other country in the world has the constitution which the U.S. enjoys. That speaks volumns... every one else can sit in a UN sandbox. I would chose not to.
34 - Dave Nalle
Go hang the UN flag out on your doorstep on the 4th and pledge your pledge of faith to it.
I'm picking that as my quote of the day.
Dave
35 - Deano
"What bothers me is that there are those who take the UN as the embodiment of law (I think you may be in that category)."
I guess the *four* times in my comments I stated that the UN has no jurisdiction or legal say over you just sailed on past....oh well.
"Go hang the UN flag out on your doorstep on the 4th and pledge your pledge of faith to it."
It's nice glib little closer, good for all occasions, and I'm sure it serves you well when you trot it out at parties...but...
You should know for future use that "pledge your pledge" is repetitive and unnecessary. You need to tighten your sentence structure to just read: "Go hang the UN flag out on your doorstep on the 4th and pledge your faith to it.", it has more impact and punch that way.
Have a Happy 4th!
By the way, UN Day is October 24th. I'm sure you're looking forward to it.;)