Ultimately is your allegience to the UN or your country?

Did your country sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Must it be signed?
;
Will your country obey the rulings of the
- International Court of Justice (ICJ) (regarding States) and
- International Criminal Court (regarding impt criminals)?



[edit on 4-2-2008 by smurf55]

I'm American. I don't know the right answers to those questions, but in either case I am positive that the US is loyal to the US and not the UN. I'm glad too.

If this is about GW and Cheney then I will support the US and the UN in bringing these war criminals to justice. I am not going to go up in arms about it however, but I will demand my representatives in Washington DC follow through on prosecution.

[edit on 4-2-2008 by stikkinikki]

my

#1 allegiance is to my heart.

#2 my family

as to weather is it to my country or the un first, i say how arbitrary.

i am for peace.

flame away, i will not take it back.

i see no difference between the two states, that is the un or the usa. it is my personal belief that the theories that the un is a ploy to take control of us, that is we the people, is laughable, as if we are not already under control.

i am not trying to deny any conspiracy, i am only stating what i see to be the reality. the fear of the "one world government" to me is comical. like it or not we ARE one. the lines drawn are arbitrary. we will not be free until we realize that. freedom partially the product of responsiblity. something few of us demonstrate on a consistant basis.

i suppose what i am trying to say is that i am loyal to neither. i am loyal to that which i see as imporant, and again that is my heart and my family. the rest i tolerate because i must.

I'm almost disgusted that the answer isn't overwhelmingly, the country. The United Nations is simply a foreign body of other other governments that have no interest in you.

Course, family and whatnot always come first.

I just couldn't care less about my country. I'm for people not arbitrary and imaginary borders built to divide the people.

im loyal to the UN

especially after they have become the world army, i cant wait

Present Administration excluded, you'd be hard to find a less inspiring, more corrupt, and flacid institution than the UN. That anyone would even be loyal to the UN astounds me. It's simply a collection of beaurocrats whose interest goes: self, country, self, world.

Neither. I haven't sworn allegiance to my country nor the UN. Even if I did, how has either given me reason to be "loyal?"

JohnMike,

You're a human. Plain and simple. Why do you have to associate yourself with America? Is that part of your identity?

You would be better off free IMO, with no allegiance to anything.

I feel much freer now that I've realized that no bureaucracy et all deserves my allegiance.

They cannot hold their promises in the first place.

reply to post by Johnmike


What's the difference between the state, the nation, and the UN? It's arbitrary divisions of who you prefer having full and total control over you. I see no difference one way or the other

reply to post by smurf55


America has not agreed to any of that nonsense, and I pray it doesn't .. though I do fear a Democrat may recognize these irrational institutions that degrade nation rights .. not just American, but as a collective whole, the entire world.

Some would rather "peace, love and happiness" at all cost... even if it means no national borders and movement without limitation.. essentially.. a NWO one world government of types.

Ironically, people believe "neocons" are going to bring that about. Talk about BS.

Well, as already pointed out
Country is a land

UN is political. If you vote country Politcal it's like saying regardless of the views of your leaders you will follow.

If the UN is trying to wholesale government funded slaughter in the streets of america -would you support the UN or the government?

Befoe you say it will never happen you'll have to explain why you have the right to bear Arms?

It seems all is not as generally accepted.

Most other circuits courts had concluded the Second Amendment protects only the rights of states to maintain militias.

source

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


The state is localized ideology in a more direct election system then the federal system.. if your from the States and you have an IQ about 60 you know that different states is essentially.. a different country. Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Pennsylvania ... every single one is a different sub culture of the greater North American culture.

Yes, there is a difference.

The Federal system, to strong as it is, is a VERY indirect election system, where States elect the leadership of the Executive Branch (not the people and this "popular vote" BS) and represents the republic's ideologies on a federal level.

Believe it or not.. aside from interstate crimes and activities like commerce.. the STATE has FAR MORE effect on YOU then the FEDERAL system does.

The UN is a completely alien source, not representing the interest of the American people as a collective ideologies, and is essentially an entity of a specific world government ideology, and represent nearly no one .. save the very few hard core liberals.

UN mandates could be allowed to effect National laws to restrict State rights.

But.. if you prefer no education in your assumption that one way or the other is the same thing, what ever.

I advise you travel more. And no, not on the computer.....

National boundaries will always better represent the people... a UN controlled world wide government would be to nations what the Federal government did to State rights.

Raped the hell outa em.


[edit on 2/4/2008 by Rockpuck]

The U.N. can shove it. I am a proud American and any foreign body trying to mess with one of our people will get deal with. Bush is our mistake and we will fix it. Don't mess with the U.S. Bush has signed into law that if any U.S. service person or government official is held against their will in any country for a charge of war crimes then that person will be freed with military force if need be. I agree with that law 100%.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Rockpuck would you mind defining "State" and "liberal" for me? As much as I disagree with your position, it may simply be a lack of understanding on my part. I really would appreciate you making these labels more clear for me. Cheers, Animal

Originally posted by biggie smalls
Neither. I haven't sworn allegiance to my country nor the UN. Even if I did, how has either given me reason to be "loyal?"

Loyalty to the state should always be conditional, and leaders should be well aware that revolution could be at their doorsteps in a hearbeat.

Originally posted by biggie smalls
You're a human. Plain and simple. Why do you have to associate yourself with America? Is that part of your identity?

You would be better off free IMO, with no allegiance to anything.

I feel much freer now that I've realized that no bureaucracy et all deserves my allegiance.

They cannot hold their promises in the first place.

Not really my identity. I believe in many things to varying degrees, some of them political. Among those are a firm devotion to liberty and the rights of the individual, those including but not limited to those that are both social and economic.

And these must be protected. Anarchy is simply impossible (the lack of formal state just leads to oppression by various groups - I'd rather not go into anarchy since it's off topic). That is why government exists - to protect the individual from his potential oppressors, both foreign and domestic. And because of the fact that the government that should protect could so easily oppress, there must be checks placed on government. This includes representation, constitutional/legal limits on power, and, most importantly, the violent and nonviolent action of citizens.


My issue is less that I believe in giving absolute allegiance or authority to any particular government. It is, rather, that I will not surrender the right to rule to unchecked, foreign tyrants.

You see, a nation is a nation because it is a group of people who banded together behind a common ideology. Should the common ideology cease to exist, so will the nation when the first opportunity arises.
The easiest example that comes to mind is that of natural rights. Obviously your masters in China or Russia will have different beliefs of what the natural rights of the individual and limits of government should be.

I did not vote for any Chinese man, an English man, a Mexican man... I voted for an American, to represent me, to work in the interests of Americans. While you might not be completely satisfied with the current government (and that's a good thing), at least they are tyrants of our own choosing, not of those working with their own interests in mind rather than our own. We have the power, whether we realize it or not, to make the power of a local tyrant completely null and void. But when it is foreign, what are we but a colony? And what choice to we have but violence?

[edit on 4-2-2008 by Johnmike]

Originally posted by Johnmike

I believe in many things to varying degrees, some of them political. Among those are a firm devotion to liberty and the rights of the individual, those including but not limited to those that are both social and economic.

And these must be protected...That is why government exists - to protect the individual from his potential oppressors, both foreign and domestic.

To me this is theoretically an interesting issue you raise, it is in my mind very reminiscent of the freedom/liberty delema in democratic governance. You state that you believe in the "liberty and the rights of the individual, those including but not limited to those that are both social and economic." Further more you state that it is to protect a persons right to these ideals that government exists. Under this premise then why is it you are against a WORLD government? What sets YOU apart from THEM?

Under the system you seem to be supporting,t hat is the government of the USA over a World Government you are in some ways saying you deserve something that another does not. When we have divisions, when we have US and THEM we allow for conflict, for oppression.

In your statement I see clearly that you have defined some sort of DIVISION and value based judgment between the YOU and THEM. You have made a rather strong (personal) value related statement that makes YOU sound somehow superior and not just separate.

My issue is less that I believe in giving absolute allegiance or authority to any particular government. It is, rather, that I will not surrender the right to rule to unchecked, foreign tyrants.

I am not raising this issue to give you a hard time, or even to single you out, I believe this sort of thinking and this sort of statement to be rather common the world around. I take this opportunity to point it out because I feel it is flawed logic. It is the logic of division and conflict.

You see, a nation is a nation because it is a group of people who banded together behind a common ideology. Should the common ideology cease to exist, so will the nation when the first opportunity arises.
The easiest example that comes to mind is that of natural rights. Obviously your masters in China or Russia will have different beliefs of what the natural rights of the individual and limits of government should be.

I totally agree with you when you speak of NATIONS but I disagree on the scale. The Pueblo Nations of New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona are incredibly distinct and seperate nations from that which I am a product of. The USA is comprised of many nations. It does not take too much looking to see the distinctions.

I did not vote for any Chinese man, an English man, a Mexican man... I voted for an American, to represent me, to work in the interests of Americans. While you might not be completely satisfied with the current government (and that's a good thing), at least they are tyrants of our own choosing, not of those working with their own interests in mind rather than our own. We have the power, whether we realize it or not, to make the power of a local tyrant completely null and void. But when it is foreign, what are we but a colony? And what choice to we have but violence?

And again the subtle distinction, the US and THEM.



[edit on 4-2-2008 by Animal]

The U.S. needs to get out of the UN...We are already considered "World Police"...The U.N. is sketchy and unnecessary for us...I personally don't like it and it's only going to get us into more trouble with the world. The UN does in fact believe it holds power over the U.S. because its considered a group of nations that have allied together for the best interest of the world...yeah right

The U.S. needs to be focused on the U.S.- enough with foreign relations and oversea talks- We've got more problems than we can handle, is that why we are all focused on the problems outside of the U.S.?

reply to post by Rockpuck

The UN is a completely alien source, not representing the interest of the American people as a collective ideologies, and is essentially an entity of a specific world government ideology, and represent nearly no one .. save the very few hard core liberals.

And this is ultimately different from the newly imperial US how exactly? And you do realize the US is the dominant force in the UN and nothing goes by without the US's thumbs-up (well, nothing binding, anyway)

You seem to be terribly confused regarding the ideal and the reality of the US

Originally posted by Animal
reply to post by Rockpuck

 

Rockpuck would you mind defining "State" and "liberal" for me? As much as I disagree with your position, it may simply be a lack of understanding on my part. I really would appreciate you making these labels more clear for me. Cheers, Animal

The State in my terms is the political boundrie of a member belonging to the Union.. The term State is quite literally in reference to a Nation State, each State is just that, a Free State, (country) .. Each of course has its own political make up.. Government make up.. Laws... Constitutions..

The Federal is the collective whole of the 50 Free States.

Liberal in my terms does not refer to Democrats, I should have used better terms, but essentially a Liberal is in reference to "embracing new ideas" .. And one such liberalistic ideology is making all nations insolvent and reducing national boundries to mere regional territories without legal rights independant from a collective worldly government.

This idea is not exclusive to just Democrats wanting "peace with everyone" type ideas.. but also "neocon" globalist ideas.. or perhaps, a perverted mix of the two..

Hope that cleared it up a little.

Fox:

And this is ultimately different from the newly imperial US how exactly?

"new" .. The US is not Imperial by anymeans, learn the definition. While we do create proxies, and we do exploit.. we do not colonize nations, and while we may have proxies, they are not used in the manor a imperialistic nation would use it for..

And you do realize the US is the dominant force in the UN and nothing goes by without the US's thumbs-up

The US is the top military and financial giver to the UN.. however there are many policies that are supported by many UN members, and not the US. The US flips the UN the bird everytime they do this, and we do not sign many world wide treatiest because it iterferes with our soveriegnty .. this administration has been quite good at ensuring the UN does not interefere without national rights as a Free Nation.

You seem to be terribly confused regarding the ideal and the reality of the US

From reading your posts, I can be quite sure that it is not ME who has a problem understanding "the reality" of the US. Overemotional perspectives based on political ideologies do not reflect "a better know how" but instead merely a shrewed outlook that reflects misconceptions or misunderstandings inpart due to a possible poor choice of material used for "educational" purposes.