4 ms·

>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,

>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.
  - jacquesm 13y ago
    You're in good company: http://www.americafirstparty.org/docs/platform.shtml http://www.americafirstparty.org/docs/platform.shtml

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.
- jacquesm 13y ago
  You're in good company: http://www.americafirstparty.org/docs/platform.shtml http://www.americafirstparty.org/docs/platform.shtml