RE: UN to the US: Ignorance, hubris, or attempted blackmail?

RE: UN to the US: Ignorance, hubris, or attempted blackmail? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

FirmhandKY -> RE: UN to the US: Ignorance, hubris, or attempted blackmail? (1/23/2010 8:09:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent I've considered it Treasure....and.... The two of you are most certainly well versed in Machiavelli's concept of the state. Gratuitous personal slam, NG? Why? Firm

NorthernGent -> RE: UN to the US: Ignorance, hubris, or attempted blackmail? (1/23/2010 8:10:09 AM)
The United Nations is actually an American concept (its predecessor being the League of Nations - brainchild of Woodrow Wilson). Whether you agree or not it was conceived to promote international law and co-operation and to prevent secret and binding alliances agreed between select nations which were deemed to have caused war. I agree though that by virtue of the nature of any large organisation the UN is bound to generate waste and appointees who milk the system. The US belongs to such groups because it's a mechanism to influence world opinion - which of course you need with competitors on the horizon.

kdsub -> RE: UN to the US: Ignorance, hubris, or attempted blackmail? (1/23/2010 12:16:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent The United Nations is actually an American concept (its predecessor being the League of Nations - brainchild of Woodrow Wilson). Whether you agree or not it was conceived to promote international law and co-operation and to prevent secret and binding alliances agreed between select nations which were deemed to have caused war. I agree though that by virtue of the nature of any large organisation the UN is bound to generate waste and appointees who milk the system. The US belongs to such groups because it's a mechanism to influence world opinion - which of course you need with competitors on the horizon. Oh yes...the US has done a great job of influencing the UN...yea right. The UN is a mirror of world opinion nothing more…This mirror should be used by all whom oppose this view for introspection. It is useless in all other capacities. Just look at its track record over the last 40 years…dismal to say the least. I am not saying this because they are so often criticizing US policy but because they have no functioning policy of their own…as was their purpose. They do not follow their own charter. A world governing body will never be useful unless they are able to have a trained standing modern army able to dominate all countries on earth if necessary. That would mean major powers relinquishing their arms for majority peace. Never happen as we know but the only way it would work. Butch

philosophy -> RE: UN to the US: Ignorance, hubris, or attempted blackmail? (1/23/2010 1:56:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent I've considered it Treasure....and.... The two of you are most certainly well versed in Machiavelli's concept of the state. Gratuitous personal slam, NG? Why? Firm ...but Firm, Treasure sort of already suggested that when she spoke of how self interest and charitable actions can be conflated. It is pretty much straight out of Machiavelli.

FirmhandKY -> RE: UN to the US: Ignorance, hubris, or attempted blackmail? (1/24/2010 2:14:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ...but Firm, Treasure sort of already suggested that when she spoke of how self interest and charitable actions can be conflated. It is pretty much straight out of Machiavelli. First, there is a distinct difference between "hand-in-hand" and "conflated". I chose my words carefully... please do not change the meaning of what I said with substitutions. Second, while I appreciate NG crediting me with far more education than I have... the truth is that I had no clue who Machiavelli was, or precisely what beliefs he espoused. I do now, of course... but nonetheless, NG's assessment was not correct. My comment was based in what I believe to be common sense... that a charitable action does not preclude thought of self-interest, nor does self-interest preclude a charitable action. To be honest, I doubt that charity for charity's sake happens much, at all. Call me a pessimist, if you will. Though, I prefer to think of myself as a realist. Treasure (who did not notice that Firm had been signed in on her laptop last)

AnimusRex -> RE: UN to the US: Ignorance, hubris, or attempted blackmail? (1/24/2010 3:10:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY My comment was based in what I believe to be common sense... that a charitable action does not preclude thought of self-interest, nor does self-interest preclude a charitable action. This is of course common sense which is why it becomes so controversial. I read the article linked, and all it says is that if we don't do what they all promised each other to do, the UN will be sorely disappointed. Hardly the sort of article that should send us to DEFCON 5. But on the larger issue, there is a growing consensus among the business world that conducting our industry in an environmentally sustainable way is not just a charitable good, but an example of enlightened self interest. Clean water, clean air, soil that is fertile, aquifers and forests that are responsibly managed....these things ultimately will bring prosperity to the society that embraces them and poverty to the ones that don't.

philosophy -> RE: UN to the US: Ignorance, hubris, or attempted blackmail? (1/24/2010 3:48:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Treasure First, there is a distinct difference between "hand-in-hand" and "conflated". I chose my words carefully... please do not change the meaning of what I said with substitutions. ....fair enough, i certainly did not intend to misrepresent you. quote: Second, while I appreciate NG crediting me with far more education than I have... the truth is that I had no clue who Machiavelli was, or precisely what beliefs he espoused. I do now, of course... but nonetheless, NG's assessment was not correct. ....well, i'm glad you've gone back to the old Prince to see what all the fuss is about. However, Machiavelli can broadly be summarised as 'no-one should act, except in their own best interest'. Which is definitely the territory you wandered into when you spoke about how charity and self interest can go hand in hand. quote: My comment was based in what I believe to be common sense... that a charitable action does not preclude thought of self-interest, nor does self-interest preclude a charitable action. To be honest, I doubt that charity for charity's sake happens much, at all. Call me a pessimist, if you will. Though, I prefer to think of myself as a realist. ......my ol' mum used to say (still does in fact) that all motivations are ultimately selfish. If we give someone a hand up, that is because we don't want to live with ourselves as the sort of person who does not offer a hand when needed. So, you and i broadly agree in this area. Guess i'm a bit machiavellian too.....lol Thing is, i don't think you or Firm ought to see machiavellian as an insult. All it really means is that a person is predicated along the lines of real-politik. Where it has become an insult is the idea that honesty has nothing to do with anything. now Machiavelli does suggest that latter course as a wise one, but it is far from the whole message of his work. The op is also more to do with this latter point than anything. Honesty is an important factor that is nothing to do with self interest or charity. quote: Treasure (who did not notice that Firm had been signed in on her laptop last) ...i changed your name up above, so as to honour that oh-so-easy mistake. Hope you don't mind :)

TreasureKY -> RE: UN to the US: Ignorance, hubris, or attempted blackmail? (1/24/2010 6:45:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: Treasure First, there is a distinct difference between "hand-in-hand" and "conflated". I chose my words carefully... please do not change the meaning of what I said with substitutions. ....fair enough, i certainly did not intend to misrepresent you. Thank you. quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ....well, i'm glad you've gone back to the old Prince to see what all the fuss is about. However, Machiavelli can broadly be summarised as 'no-one should act, except in their own best interest'. Which is definitely the territory you wandered into when you spoke about how charity and self interest can go hand in hand. I'm not sure I'd summarize Machiavelli in that manner. However, with your summation in mind, it is the mis-characterization of my statement with which I take exception. To say that "charity and self-interest *can* go hand-in-hand" is the equivalent of "no-one should act, except in their own best interest" is a bit like saying that someone who dislikes Obama *must* be a die-hard Republican. Both original statements are simply what they are. There's no need to assume philosophies beyond what was said... you could be wrong, and in fact NG was. quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ......my ol' mum used to say (still does in fact) that all motivations are ultimately selfish. If we give someone a hand up, that is because we don't want to live with ourselves as the sort of person who does not offer a hand when needed. So, you and i broadly agree in this area. Guess i'm a bit machiavellian too.....lol Your mother is a wise woman. [:)] quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy Thing is, i don't think you or Firm ought to see machiavellian as an insult. I wouldn't, except that I don't believe NG intended to be complimentary... and he hardly has enough information to otherwise determine what my philosophies are. quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ...i changed your name up above, so as to honour that oh-so-easy mistake. Hope you don't mind :) Thank you, again... it is much appreciated.

servantforuse -> RE: UN to the US: Ignorance, hubris, or attempted blackmail? (1/25/2010 7:53:40 AM)
Obama broke a lot of promises to the American people. He can break this one to. Not a problem for him.

SeekingAZ -> RE: UN to the US: Ignorance, hubris, or attempted blackmail? (1/27/2010 3:47:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg Philosophy. YES!! Words and promises from people who have no authority to make them are worthless. What do you not understand about that? Why are you confused about that? Obama (any US president) is not a king, he does not rule by decree. How can you actually be confused about this? ...the same way that, once, i had to patiently explain to one of your countrymen here on these boards that the Queen does not declare war nowadays. Nor does she make law. Well, that's one explanation. That the definition of head of state varies wildly from country to country. Another explanation is that i'm confused because, when GWB was in power, the same posters who here suggest that the word of a president should carry no weight were suggesting that it was unpatriotic to not support the word of a sitting president. That wasn't us. That was Hillary complaining about a non-existent insult for political gain. quote: Hypocrisy, or at least the appearence of it, often confuses me....... Hillary is naturally confusing, she has to be, if she was honest with her agenda she wouldn't be elected.

SeekingAZ -> RE: UN to the US: Ignorance, hubris, or attempted blackmail? (1/27/2010 4:03:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent The United Nations is actually an American concept (its predecessor being the League of Nations - brainchild of Woodrow Wilson). Whether you agree or not it was conceived to promote international law and co-operation and to prevent secret and binding alliances agreed between select nations which were deemed to have caused war. I agree though that by virtue of the nature of any large organisation the UN is bound to generate waste and appointees who milk the system. The US belongs to such groups because it's a mechanism to influence world opinion - which of course you need with competitors on the horizon. Oh yes...the US has done a great job of influencing the UN...yea right. The UN is a mirror of world opinion nothing more…This mirror should be used by all whom oppose this view for introspection. It is useless in all other capacities. Just look at its track record over the last 40 years…dismal to say the least. I am not saying this because they are so often criticizing US policy but because they have no functioning policy of their own…as was their purpose. They do not follow their own charter. A world governing body will never be useful unless they are able to have a trained standing modern army able to dominate all countries on earth if necessary. That would mean major powers relinquishing their arms for majority peace. Never happen as we know but the only way it would work. Butch Yeah, global dictatorship, sounds wonderful. You basically just said the UN will always be ineffective until it becomes exactly what it is supposed to dissuade other countries from attempting, my eyes may never uncross. I don't care if the UN is ineffective and stupid. It's just counter to US interest when we elect dipshits that play along with them. Well, i also think they should be forced to move, that prime Manhatten real estate deserves a higher purpose (ya know, like a feed lot or mega porn studio, etc).

kdsub -> RE: UN to the US: Ignorance, hubris, or attempted blackmail? (1/27/2010 11:35:25 AM)
If the United Nations is the embodiment of world opinion how could if be a dictatorship just because it had the power to enforce world opinion? Butch

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125