Active Users:1104 Time:23/11/2024 01:04:02 AM
Disagree - but it's most a matter of definition there SilverWarder Send a noteboard - 11/08/2010 04:31:53 PM
To me the 'enforcement body' is the body that does the actual enforcement.

By your definition a city council is an enforcement body because they control the police. I think that is confusing and inaccurate.

<snip>

Whilst of course it is not the same and fundamentally voluntary, there are usually enough countries willing to donate enough troops. Not counting Rwanda.


Or Somalia. Or Darfur in the Sudan. Or Afghanistan. Or Pakistan. Or Kashmir. Or - need I go on?

<snip>

Do people assume that? I think most people are aware that the US is not invovled in most of the military treaties and many of the conventions of the UN, examples being the recent ban on cluster bombs and the less recent failure to ratify the Rome Statute. Part of the maintainence of International Law is in the fact that we simply accept it as much in mere principle.


A lot do, yes.

But read on...

Can you actually explain how the UN is used by small countries to screw over the large ones? I'm not really sure if I understand the plausibility/ actual historical occurance of this.


Oh sure. In fact, let's take the cluster bomb thing you mentioned above. You know WHY cluster bombs are on the ban? For one, they're frequently considered mines (they aren't, they're unexploded ordnance, but never mind that for a moment) the big reason is that cluster bombs are hugely effective and are highly technological. Small little dirtbag countries cannot deploy them most of the time. So they get everyone up in arms about unexploded ordnance (a problem in every war since the American Civil War and still an issue in parts of Europe from the two World Wars) and how cluster bombs are evil and that they should be banned. Everyone agrees that this is terrible and all those countries whose militaries either A) Don't want to be hit by weapons they cannot field or B) Don't use their militaries because they're too liberal jump on the bandwagon. The US tells everyone to piss off because cluster bombs work very well and they know full well what's really going on.

Also - the whole Landmine thing. Does anyone ACTUALLY think that a treaty would have prevented the Khmer Rouge from filling big chunks of Southeast Asia with mines? I think not. We're talking about people who think piles of skulls are a good cultural statement. Is it going to prevent terrorists or insurgents from using IEDs (which are effectively landmines)? Umm, hasn't yet. How about the tinpot dictatorships? No, Saddam used them extensively in his defensive belts in the desert. So who then, is this legislation actually aimed at? The US. Why? Because, among other things, North Korea would really like to see the DMZ not filled with modern US maintained mines - it would make it easier for them to cause trouble.

The main reason the US didn't sign that treaty was because of the DMZ by the way. Other than that they were more or less fine with it save as it impacted cluster bombs and airfield denial mines - but of course the US is almost the only country which actually uses those technologies.

Or let's go back a bit further to the UN treaty on the Clark Orbit. The Clark (after late SF writer Arthur C. Clark) orbit is also commonly known as the geosynchronous orbit - the best orbit to put something up and have it stay over the spot it was put. This is highly useful for things like telecommunications satellites.

Now at the time the treaty was written there was huge pressure for the treaty to be 'fair' and every nation to have a section of the Clark orbit allocated to it. So that's what was done. Never mind that the vast majority of those countries didn't have space programs and couldn't USE their spots, they wanted them anyway. The real reason why was that a lot of South American dictators didn't want the US to put up spy satellites or telecommunications satellites that they didn't and couldn't control over their countries. So by demanding their 'fair share' they were just playing denial tactics.

There are other examples, plenty of them, but I think that should do.
May God stand between you and harm in all the empty places you must walk.

Old Egyptian Blessing
Reply to message
Let's ban all Christian Marriage. - 07/08/2010 06:36:13 AM 1533 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me. - 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM 962 Views
One small problem... - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 981 Views
Re tax. - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 1014 Views
That seems sensible to me. - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 857 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 1016 Views
Nice. *NM* - 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM 584 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people. - 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM 1185 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there! - 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM 995 Views
Who else should make those decisions? - 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM 945 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM 911 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM 1056 Views
You'd defend this idiot? *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:40:34 AM 474 Views
Indeed - 08/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 994 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering. - 08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM 981 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged - 08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM 894 Views
Um, ok. *NM* - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 475 Views
*Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM 863 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM 504 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM 957 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM 919 Views
Gah! You did that on purpose! - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 873 Views
whoops *NM* - 09/08/2010 02:22:49 AM 438 Views
Re: *Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM 909 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about. - 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM 854 Views
You cannot be that stupid. - 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM 1140 Views
Incorrect. Genders are not treated equally. - 11/08/2010 07:53:00 PM 1228 Views
all you need is enough support to pass an amendment - 08/08/2010 02:46:08 PM 849 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 884 Views
And what is wrong with polygamy? *NM* - 09/08/2010 10:36:53 AM 476 Views
Did I say there was anything? - 09/08/2010 11:03:10 AM 1001 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad. - 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM 923 Views
Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM 875 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM 857 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM 968 Views
Not really - 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM 827 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM 957 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 839 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 983 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 998 Views
... - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 878 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 1013 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 824 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM 938 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM 827 Views
Great post Danny - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 694 Views
It should be noted again... - 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM 989 Views
and how is it not a right? - 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM 863 Views
My definition of rights... - 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM 988 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right. - 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM 753 Views
+1 - 10/08/2010 03:11:22 AM 1040 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example - 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM 852 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis... - 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM 976 Views
If we need a more specific resolution... - 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM 1160 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though. - 10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM 851 Views
It also doesn't say they can - 10/08/2010 04:41:18 AM 855 Views
You're missing the point. It's not about gay marriage. - 10/08/2010 11:20:59 AM 844 Views
No, I got that, I'm pointing out how it does so - 10/08/2010 01:47:00 PM 869 Views
To clarify for you - 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM 777 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body... - 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM 1222 Views
I'm not sure that I would call the Security Council the 'Enforcement Body' - 10/08/2010 08:43:02 PM 825 Views
The fact that it is capable of authorizing the use of military force makes it an enforcement body - 10/08/2010 10:33:59 PM 1088 Views
Disagree - but it's most a matter of definition there - 11/08/2010 04:31:53 PM 992 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 785 Views
and the Constitution dictates nothing about marriage. *NM* - 10/08/2010 11:46:24 PM 457 Views
That means it is up to the people. And they say "No." *NM* - 11/08/2010 03:13:12 PM 462 Views
No, but it does dictate things about rights and discrimination - 12/08/2010 03:48:02 PM 1030 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right. - 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM 929 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction... - 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM 1005 Views
I agree - 10/08/2010 06:11:19 PM 733 Views
Yeah but this can't be used to prove that it IS a right... - 10/08/2010 07:30:57 PM 1084 Views
Note it all you want... - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 726 Views
The best one yet. - 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM 973 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM 849 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM 957 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM 837 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM 959 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel - 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM 936 Views

Reply to Message