Active Users:378 Time:16/09/2026 02:09:29 AM
I'm not sure that I would call the Security Council the 'Enforcement Body' SilverWarder Send a noteboard - 10/08/2010 08:43:02 PM
And is the only organ that can authorize the legal use of military force, unless of course it is military force in self defense and also apply punishment for violations, sanctions etc. Of course, the problem is that the US would never be punished for violating the UDHR in this way not only because of the veto, but also from a practical standpoint that a majority of the world can't be called upon to sanction itself.


An Enforcement Body made up of a handful of old diplomats isn't going to stop much. You need a military for that.

My point was that the UN is not allowed its own military. The Security Council may allow the militaries of other nations to act (should they so voluntarily desire) as an enforcement body, but that's not the same thing. We're talking about entirely different things here. When I used the term Enforcement Body - I meant an actual body of troops which would be used for enforcement (which the UN is not allowed through its charter) not the advisory council which might order such a body to act, if it existed.

Now I totally agree with you on many of your points, that often the UN just ends up as a a tool for the powerful nations to screw over the weak ones, calling upon them to act under its mandates but ignoring them ourselves. However, it is an important point that we remember that just because the UN is ineffective at enforcing its own legislation that we, the member states, are ultimately responsible for upholding international law. In the end, a law is a law in the fact that it is acted upon, not in the precsence or lack thereof of a capable penal body.


Actually the UN is a tool for everyone to screw over everyone else. Little nations often use it as a tool to screw over big nations and frequently get away with THAT too - unless the Security Council vetoes. It is, in fact, a fairly useless mess. I'm not a fan of the UN. While their hearts are sometimes in the right place they are a paper tiger and really act as nothing but a political sanction for those who actually do the deeds that need doing.

And I will disagree with you that a law is a law. A law that is not enforced (or not enforceable, which is most of the UN's 'laws';) is not a law at all. It's just hot air and wishful thinking. People may call it a 'law' but laws, by definition, are supposed to be enforced. If it is not or cannot be, I don't consider it to be a law other than perhaps as a technicality. And I think technicalities are BS.

Though this is a total, near relevent tangent, my point is that ultimately the United States, not the Security Council is responsible for upholding whatever international law within itself. As a democracy, this mantle of authority falls upon we the people.


The difficulty is that people assume that the US is signatory to every piece of legislation the UN puts out (it very much isn't) or that it should be if it isn't (it very much should not be due to that 'little guy trying to screw over the big guy' thing I mentioned earlier). Many of those pieces of legislation hamstring big governments or militaries and would equally hamstring the little ones too - except that even while signatories they just ignore them figuring, usually correctly, that no one will do anything about it except send the occasional nastygram which will promptly get used in the Generalissimo's john as TP. Oh there might be 'sanctions' but those tin pot governments love those. They can make all the westerners out to be nasty bad guys and solidify their own power even while not being inconvenienced in any meaningful way themselves. Meanwhile their people pay the price and blame all the people they are told to blame.
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 1853 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me. - 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM 1229 Views
One small problem... - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 1229 Views
Re tax. - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 1287 Views
That seems sensible to me. - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 1175 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 1298 Views
Nice. *NM* - 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM 718 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people. - 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM 1486 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there! - 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM 1350 Views
Who else should make those decisions? - 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM 1260 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM 1163 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM 1324 Views
You'd defend this idiot? *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:40:34 AM 595 Views
Indeed - 08/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 1256 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering. - 08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM 1262 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged - 08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM 1167 Views
Um, ok. *NM* - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 601 Views
*Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM 1136 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM 623 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM 1251 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM 1187 Views
Gah! You did that on purpose! - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 1131 Views
whoops *NM* - 09/08/2010 02:22:49 AM 557 Views
Re: *Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM 1184 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about. - 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM 1139 Views
You cannot be that stupid. - 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM 1398 Views
Incorrect. Genders are not treated equally. - 11/08/2010 07:53:00 PM 1523 Views
all you need is enough support to pass an amendment - 08/08/2010 02:46:08 PM 1122 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 1192 Views
And what is wrong with polygamy? *NM* - 09/08/2010 10:36:53 AM 617 Views
Did I say there was anything? - 09/08/2010 11:03:10 AM 1263 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad. - 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM 1211 Views
Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM 1152 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM 1123 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM 1237 Views
Not really - 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM 1094 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM 1215 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 1086 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 1276 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 1292 Views
... - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 1161 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 1282 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 1087 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM 1209 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM 1135 Views
Great post Danny - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 985 Views
It should be noted again... - 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM 1246 Views
and how is it not a right? - 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM 1159 Views
My definition of rights... - 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM 1244 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right. - 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM 1013 Views
+1 - 10/08/2010 03:11:22 AM 1304 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example - 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM 1110 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis... - 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM 1269 Views
If we need a more specific resolution... - 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM 1450 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though. - 10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM 1121 Views
It also doesn't say they can - 10/08/2010 04:41:18 AM 1119 Views
You're missing the point. It's not about gay marriage. - 10/08/2010 11:20:59 AM 1156 Views
No, I got that, I'm pointing out how it does so - 10/08/2010 01:47:00 PM 1145 Views
To clarify for you - 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM 1111 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body... - 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM 1508 Views
I'm not sure that I would call the Security Council the 'Enforcement Body' - 10/08/2010 08:43:02 PM 1125 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 1074 Views
and the Constitution dictates nothing about marriage. *NM* - 10/08/2010 11:46:24 PM 578 Views
That means it is up to the people. And they say "No." *NM* - 11/08/2010 03:13:12 PM 589 Views
No, but it does dictate things about rights and discrimination - 12/08/2010 03:48:02 PM 1300 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right. - 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM 1231 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction... - 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM 1289 Views
I agree - 10/08/2010 06:11:19 PM 989 Views
Yeah but this can't be used to prove that it IS a right... - 10/08/2010 07:30:57 PM 1443 Views
Note it all you want... - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 1005 Views
The best one yet. - 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM 1246 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM 1118 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM 1209 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM 1125 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM 1259 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel - 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM 1230 Views
Re: Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel - 11/08/2010 05:09:23 PM 1176 Views

Reply to Message