7 ms·

No, instead of expect others to deal with the US foreign policy when it comes to spying, fix the offending foreign policy. US is at the blame here, not UN or t

• rayiner 13y ago
  It was a joke, to point out how ridiculous it is to talk about "treaties" with the U.N., which is not an entity that can enforce anything against the U.S. Not when the U.S. is a permanent member of the security council and provides 22% of the U.N.'s budget: http://globalsolutions.org/united-nations/funding http://globalsolutions.org/united-nations/funding. A "treaty" or "law" that can't be enforced doesn't merit the name--it's just lip service.
  • ferdo 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidious_Albion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidious_Albion
  • gruseom 13y ago
    What international agent has the power to enforce anything on the U.S.? Clearly none. So it follows from what you're saying that the U.S. doesn't have any treaty obligations at all. I thought even the hardest-nosed realists didn't argue that. Maybe neocons do?
    • solnyshok 13y ago
      Remember where Snowden went for shelter? Obviously his job taught him, that the only 2 countries that USA cannot enforce anything on, are Russia and China.
  • jacquesm 13y ago
    Essentially you are saying 'fuck you' to any other country but the US short of engaging in war. Do you realize that treaties exist with the express purpose of avoiding that? The fact that the US can bully its way wherever it wants and can afford to ignore every treaty it is signatory to is setting a fine example. I'd hold a tinpot dictator to a higher standard than this. It is recognized that some parties are stronger than others. That does not give the stronger parties the right to ignore their treaties, which count as solemn promises rather than lip-service. Dumb shit like this is what got us into plenty of wars in the past. If the United States does not want to be party to treaties then it should simply not sign them. (See: the ICC).
    • fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      >If the United States does not want to be party to treaties then it should simply not sign them. That naivete ignores the fact that from a thug's perspective, it is entirely advantageous to sign treaties, and then secretly ignore them.
      • jacquesm 13y ago
        Sure, but on that note we might as well ignore any treaty and just disband the UN. I think a forum where nation states can gather in relative peace is a good thing and I think that nation states once bound by treaty should abide by that treaty, even the largest, especially the largest.
        • fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
          >I think a forum where nation states can gather in relative peace is a good thing. Of course, I agree, but I'm not sure it can exist. >I think that nation states once bound by treaty should abide by that treaty, even the largest, especially the largest. Well, the US has demonstrated that it is not to be trusted. Move the UN HQ to... umm... I don't know where.
          • jacquesm 13y ago
            .ch or .be
        • rayiner 13y ago
          In a way I agree with you. The U.S. generally should not enter into treaties. Treaties are tools you use when you don't have the leverage of force. The U.S. will never take any action that's not in its interest, regardless of what a treaty says, so it should avoid being duplicitous and just not sign on to treaties. But whenever who do that (re: Kyoto, ICC, etc), the left throws a huge fit. So duplicity it is. More generally, I think the U.N. serves a valuable humanitarian purpose. It serves as a great vehicle for coordinating international efforts. I think it's a total failure as a political organization. I'd have no problem disbanding the General Assembly and just preserving the useful agencies (UNICEF, ICAO, WHO, etc). It's unfortunately not politically practical in the U.S., because a certain segment of the country fetishizes world government.