Active Users:692 Time:16/02/2026 10:24:13 PM
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 1734 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me. - 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM 1130 Views
One small problem... - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 1140 Views
Re tax. - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 1180 Views
That seems sensible to me. - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 1078 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 1208 Views
Nice. *NM* - 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM 655 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people. - 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM 1391 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there! - 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM 1207 Views
Who else should make those decisions? - 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM 1143 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM 1062 Views
I'd totally... - 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM 1223 Views
You'd defend this idiot? *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:40:34 AM 544 Views
Indeed - 08/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 1154 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering. - 08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM 1165 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged - 08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM 1063 Views
Um, ok. *NM* - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 542 Views
*Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM 1034 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM* - 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM 582 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM 1128 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense. - 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM 1081 Views
Gah! You did that on purpose! - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 1033 Views
whoops *NM* - 09/08/2010 02:22:49 AM 498 Views
Re: *Shakes Head* - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM 1073 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about. - 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM 1012 Views
You cannot be that stupid. - 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM 1303 Views
Incorrect. Genders are not treated equally. - 11/08/2010 07:53:00 PM 1403 Views
all you need is enough support to pass an amendment - 08/08/2010 02:46:08 PM 1004 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 1046 Views
And what is wrong with polygamy? *NM* - 09/08/2010 10:36:53 AM 551 Views
Did I say there was anything? - 09/08/2010 11:03:10 AM 1166 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad. - 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM 1112 Views
Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM 1039 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM 1028 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? - 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM 1140 Views
Not really - 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM 1004 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM 1130 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 999 Views
Re: Not really - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 1174 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 1164 Views
... - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 1067 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 1178 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 984 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM 1104 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM 992 Views
Great post Danny - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 865 Views
It should be noted again... - 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM 1153 Views
and how is it not a right? - 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM 1044 Views
My definition of rights... - 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM 1149 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right. - 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM 912 Views
+1 - 10/08/2010 03:11:22 AM 1208 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example - 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM 1005 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis... - 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM 1154 Views
If we need a more specific resolution... - 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM 1339 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though. - 10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM 1023 Views
It also doesn't say they can - 10/08/2010 04:41:18 AM 1023 Views
You're missing the point. It's not about gay marriage. - 10/08/2010 11:20:59 AM 1038 Views
No, I got that, I'm pointing out how it does so - 10/08/2010 01:47:00 PM 1037 Views
To clarify for you - 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM 1015 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body... - 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM 1399 Views
I'm not sure that I would call the Security Council the 'Enforcement Body' - 10/08/2010 08:43:02 PM 1017 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 957 Views
and the Constitution dictates nothing about marriage. *NM* - 10/08/2010 11:46:24 PM 524 Views
That means it is up to the people. And they say "No." *NM* - 11/08/2010 03:13:12 PM 532 Views
No, but it does dictate things about rights and discrimination - 12/08/2010 03:48:02 PM 1205 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right. - 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM 1133 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction... - 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM 1193 Views
I agree - 10/08/2010 06:11:19 PM 889 Views
Yeah but this can't be used to prove that it IS a right... - 10/08/2010 07:30:57 PM 1265 Views
Note it all you want... - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 886 Views
The best one yet. - 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM 1143 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM 1003 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM 1122 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM 1021 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane - 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM 1154 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel - 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM 1127 Views
Re: Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel - 11/08/2010 05:09:23 PM 1076 Views

Reply to Message