What is wrong with the New World Order. The Global Government Debate Thread

[lord_casek]

nah Casek it is cool, just the way the British media reports stuff comes across a ludicrous, if it is written by a British newspaper take it with more than a pinch of salt

 

Those cases are individual police officers fucking up and misinterpreting what they think the law is.

 

 

Yeah, it goes the same for some of our media outlets. Gotta sift through the crap to get to the gems.

[R@ndomH3ro]

serious with this question? you must be really naive, no offense.

 

I am serious, this thread was to spark debate on the pros and cons of a global government. There is nothing naive about it.

 

i never said it was a good or bad thing. I never gave my opinion on the subject, just terms to spark a good thought provoking discussion on the matter.

Contribute or dont

[Decyferon]

I think people are a little naive if they don't think the way the world is currently run has some degree of global governence.

 

Just look at all the treaties etc that take part with numerous worlds leaders all coming together to have an agreement. While they aren't running the world you can't really exist in modern society without playing the game which is why countries like N.Korea/Iran etc suffer because they alienate themselves from the global political game.

[Mercer]

I think it would suck, although I have my complaints I've lived in other countries and visited them, USA is still better, at least to me it is.

I even think the US is watered down by such a strong Federal Government and would like to see more individual rights for states.

[Zig]

I agree with casek, I think it would be an insult to everything America has stood for and the whole point of creating the constitution to defend our liberties. In fact, I think what is being set up through globalization is the exact kind of bureaucracy which we were attempting to protect ourselves against when this nation was founded. These arguments some of you are presenting about national sovereignty not being important, and world constitutions, etc. I mean you sound exactly like the political figures in office pushing these agendas. This is the kind of stuff they say to justify it, so I guess you agree with them? I mean, I am fundamentally in disagreement with these concepts and as much as I wish there weren't borders and we could all get along, the reality is quite different. That's why I feel national sovereignty and individual liberty is important to protect your rights, and the rights of society.

 

This thread for me, just illustrates why so many of you here on this forum can't relate to the NWO topics as much as I've seen in other forums around the internet. I'm noticing a lot of you aren't American. Yea, we have our guns, private property, individual liberty, "freedom"... that is what is important to us, but remember we have a constitution here in this country too and it isn't being respected in many situations, so a world constitution wouldn't be much of an incentive for us to sign onto some form of global governance. I know the rest of the world is on that hippy shit (it's funny because you guys call ME a hippy), but the reality of the world is much different then the "let's all hold hands, get along, and save the planet" global governance agenda.

 

I say the OP is naive not because I feel I have more experience then him, because I don't. I know jack shit, I will be the first to tell you that, and I don't care either. I say it because I don't understand how you can't comprehend what kind of implications this would have on free society. As an American, this to me is common sense, and that's only because I've studied history and I know the ramifications of centralized government with large out of control bureaucracy.

 

My argument against global governance is essentially a conservative one, not so unlike the anti-NWO brigade, which is that we have built a stable (yes this is debatable!) system of international order under-which we, in the west at least, have relatively positive institutions that protect individual liberty . To begin to reshuffle this current arrangement leaves us open to the possibility that the outcome will be less beneficial for humanity generally, potentially through abuse of further centralised power, or through a select and unrepresentative group having a disproportionate amount of power. It is also very difficult to believe that in the creation of a system of global governance, prevailing national interests wont distort, and ultimately skew in the favour of those nations who the creators come from (which will more than likely be predominantly of western origin). However, if you look back at the history of nationalism to see how it was fostered from the top down in the interest of those in power, and eventually became a concept strongly held by the grass roots of various societies. It would not be hard to imagine that a similar process could occur with a unification around an global constitution, for example.

 

You'd be surprised to find out just how much you have in common with the anti-NWO crowd, ff.

[Decyferon]

I dont disagree with you Zig, I just find it rather amusing that Americans harp on about individual liberty, freedom, private property like these things don't exist anywhere else, they do, they are everywhere the only difference is is that here not every junkie or wanna be thug is able to run around armed to the teeth like some lunatic.

 

It just seems to me sometimes that you have an idea of what other countries are like when you have never been there and know nothing about them.

[lord_casek]

I dont disagree with you Zig, I just find it rather amusing that Americans harp on about individual liberty, freedom, private property like these things don't exist anywhere else, they do, they are everywhere the only difference is is that here not every junkie or wanna be thug is able to run around armed to the teeth like some lunatic.

 

It just seems to me sometimes that you have an idea of what other countries are like when you have never been there and know nothing about them.

 

 

It's a matter of what our founders intended. Arming ourselves was intended to keep tyrants from owning us.

[Decyferon]

Oh I know that, it is more the idea that nowhere else in the world has freedom, that is what bugs me, America is not a bastion of freedom and the only place in the world that has it.

 

I personally think America is more a slave to the gun than it offering freedom. I'm not saying the forefathers didnt intend it to be a positive thing, I am saying in modern society it isn't really all that positive, but it is something you just have to live with.

[Zig]

you're saying I think America is the only place in the world with freedom? no, i don't think that at all... as a matter of fact I don't even consider what we have here as freedom, I think America has transformed into one of the worst police states in the world actually. the idealogies of our founding fathers and those influential people during that time period is what is important to me, the documents that came out of that, the laws which were established. none of this stuff would be anywhere in the world if it weren't for that revolution in society and rebellion against the sort of tyranny we're speaking about.

[Decyferon]

We can agree on something there as well Zig, I also think America has become one of the worst police states there is. All I ever read about is injustice after injustice, police basically going unchecked, it is ridiculous.

[lord_casek]

Decyferon: Have you ever read Thomas Paine's works?

[El Mamerro]

I basically feel global governance is pretty much inevitable from an evolutionary standpoint. The question is not if, but "when" and "how". We've gone from extremely fractured and separate groupings (tribes) to large conglomerates (nations) that have proven to be much more efficient in taking care of solving humanity's most pressing issues. In the past, massive, world-spanning empires have tried to take hold and failed, mainly because we simply weren't technologically and culturally ready back then to come together like that. In today's world, the communication and collaboration tools we've developed, and the ability to instantly share knowledge between anyone in the world completely change the playing field when it comes to large scale governance. It's a little shortsighted to say things wouldn't work now because they haven't worked in the past; we're working on an entirely different technological paradigm here.

 

American-style freedom has so far proven to be one of, if not THE, most efficient way of progressing as humans, with most modern nations adopting similar (or at least related) frameworks to get themselves ahead. I wouldn't doubt for a second that any kind of global governance established in the world would be at least very strongly based on American ideals of society. I don't see why global governance should be mutually exclusive of individual rights or allowing nations to have more than a fair degree of national sovereignty in dealing with their people and their territory. That said, while American-style freedom has proven to be extremely awesome for technological progression, it has also allowed us to be tremendously wasteful and irresponsible with our natural resources. This is something that needs to be addressed, and most Americans won't want to hear the truth of what it entails.

 

However, I do share the concern that handing governance to yet another global bureaucracy would probably yield shitty results, so I can't advocate it yet. I do think we are more technologically capable to take care of our future and participate more than ever in issues of governance right now, and this will only increase in the future. I think we are rich in possibilities in the near future for a new type of government that leverages the internet's ability to give people a voice to become the fairest system we've known yet.

[the.crooked]

^^^^yup.

[Decyferon]

Decyferon: Have you ever read Thomas Paine's works?

 

yep I have read some stuff, but it was ages ago, my brother is actually named after him

[lord_casek]

yep I have read some stuff, but it was ages ago, my brother is actually named after him

 

 

I remember talking about this with you. You should reread his works. I have a feeling that if you did your ideas on global governance might change.

[Decyferon]

oh I am not supporting it by any means, I am just saying that it does go on at the moment and we are naive to think that it doesn't.

 

You know me Casek, as much as i put my own opinions on here I also like to play the devils advocate as well. But I will definitely go back and re-read his works.

[christo-f]

Of course it exists already. Without it sovereignty would not exist and neither would the modern world.

 

How do you think air traffic, sea traffic is coordinated, nuclear proliferation is (attempted to be) contained, financial systems and interbank lending, etc. etc. etc..... takes place?

 

There are already a huuuuuge amount of unconnected global governance regimes in place. We'd be fucked without them.

[lord_casek]

oh I am not supporting it by any means, I am just saying that it does go on at the moment and we are naive to think that it doesn't.

 

You know me Casek, as much as i put my own opinions on here I also like to play the devils advocate as well. But I will definitely go back and re-read his works.

 

 

When I'm taking a shit (I'm sure he'd be happy to know this) I read "Common Sense"

and "The Age of Reason" over and over.

 

To know that Paine was a man who enjoyed his pints but also had a strong sense of what sovereignty is makes him feel like someone I would enjoy hanging out with.

 

 

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right."

Thomas Paine

[lord_casek]

Of course it exists already. Without it sovereignty would not exist and neither would the modern world.

 

How do you think air traffic, sea traffic is coordinated, nuclear proliferation is (attempted to be) contained, financial systems and interbank lending, etc. etc. etc..... takes place?

 

There are already a huuuuuge amount of unconnected global governance regimes in place. We'd be fucked without them.

 

 

Completely different from the subject of this thread.

[christo-f]

No, I disagree.

 

Show me where we have defined what global governance actually is.

 

 

To me it would concern itself only with global issues such as environmental degradation, WMDs and more than likely take over the admin tasks such as laws of the ocean/skys and border demarcation, etc.

 

Why would the world interest itself in much more that that? The League of Nations was originally conceived of as a global mechanism to ensure sovereignty.

[lord_casek]

No, I disagree.

 

Show me where we have defined what global governance actually is.

 

 

To me it would concern itself only with global issues such as environmental degradation, WMDs and more than likely take over the admin tasks such as laws of the ocean/skys and border demarcation, etc.

 

Why would the world interest itself in much more that that? The League of Nations was originally conceived of as a global mechanism to ensure sovereignty.

 

 

http://firstworldwar.com/source/lodge_leagueofnations.htm

 

http://www.jbs.org/component/content/article/974-userblogs/5079-its-all-about-independence-to-good-not-to-pass-on

[christo-f]

I have no idea what I'm supposed to gain out of those links.

 

If the one concerning the League of nations was supposed to refute what I'd just said, please copy and paste the bits that do so because I couldn't find them.

 

As for the one from the AntiWar.com site, I'm not even sure where to start with that. All it was, was a bunch of poetic accusations that barely even mentioned the League of Nations. I have no idea what the relevance of linking us to that blog piece that was more concerned with coups and neocons was....

 

It's just the same thing that you say said by some one else. THere's nothing in there that says the League of nations wasn't formed to ensure sovereignty (just some guy saying to wouldn't work) and nothing at all that addressed my claim that global government would more than likely restrict itself to global matters and ignore local.

 

Can you explain to me how those two items addressed my point?

[Removed]

 

 

You'd be surprised to find out just how much you have in common with the anti-NWO crowd, ff.

 

haha I'm not so sure about that. I am sure that there is loose commonality between my views and you and your homies as what some of the problems with the current state of affairs are. Yet, I doubt there is much parallel between our opinions as to why this is, or what the desired outcomes would be.

[lord_casek]

I have no idea what I'm supposed to gain out of those links.

 

If the one concerning the League of nations was supposed to refute what I'd just said, please copy and paste the bits that do so because I couldn't find them.

 

As for the one from the AntiWar.com site, I'm not even sure where to start with that. All it was, was a bunch of poetic accusations that barely even mentioned the League of Nations. I have no idea what the relevance of linking us to that blog piece that was more concerned with coups and neocons was....

 

It's just the same thing that you say said by some one else. THere's nothing in there that says the League of nations wasn't formed to ensure sovereignty (just some guy saying to wouldn't work) and nothing at all that addressed my claim that global government would more than likely restrict itself to global matters and ignore local.

 

Can you explain to me how those two items addressed my point?

 

Don't take this the wrong way but it sounds like you already have your mind made up

about whatever I will say.

[christo-f]

No, I just can't catch the relevance in what you just posted in relations to my previous post.

 

Honestly, copy paste the bit that shows that the League was not formed to protect sovereignty or that a global govt will probably concern itself with global issues.

 

If they are there and I've missed them, just copy and paste them.

 

How can I have my mind up about what you are saying when I can't even tell what it is?!

[lord_casek]

Mr. President:

 

The independence of the United States is not only more precious to ourselves but to the world than any single possession. Look at the United States today. We have made mistakes in the past. We have had shortcomings. We shall make mistakes in the future and fall short of our own best hopes. But none the less is there any country today on the face of the earth which can compare with this in ordered liberty, in peace, and in the largest freedom?

 

I feel that I can say this without being accused of undue boastfulness, for it is the simple fact, and in making this treaty and taking on these obligations all that we do is in a spirit of unselfishness and in a desire for the good of mankind. But it is well to remember that we are dealing with nations every one of which has a direct individual interest to serve, and there is grave danger in an unshared idealism.

 

Contrast the United States with any country on the face of the earth today and ask yourself whether the situation of the United States is not the best to be found. I will go as far as anyone in world service, but the first step to world service is the maintenance of the United States.

 

I have always loved one flag and I cannot share that devotion [with] a mongrel banner created for a League.

 

You may call me selfish if you will, conservative or reactionary, or use any other harsh adjective you see fit to apply, but an American I was born, an American I have remained all my life. I can never be anything else but an American, and I must think of the United States first, and when I think of the United States first in an arrangement like this I am thinking of what is best for the world, for if the United States fails, the best hopes of mankind fail with it.

 

I have never had but one allegiance - I cannot divide it now. I have loved but one flag and I cannot share that devotion and give affection to the mongrel banner invented for a league. Internationalism, illustrated by the Bolshevik and by the men to whom all countries are alike provided they can make money out of them, is to me repulsive.

 

National I must remain, and in that way I like all other Americans can render the amplest service to the world. The United States is the world's best hope, but if you fetter her in the interests and quarrels of other nations, if you tangle her in the intrigues of Europe, you will destroy her power for good and endanger her very existence. Leave her to march freely through the centuries to come as in the years that have gone.

 

Strong, generous, and confident, she has nobly served mankind. Beware how you trifle with your marvellous inheritance, this great land of ordered liberty, for if we stumble and fall freedom and civilization everywhere will go down in ruin.

 

We are told that we shall 'break the heart of the world' if we do not take this league just as it stands. I fear that the hearts of the vast majority of mankind would beat on strongly and steadily and without any quickening if the league were to perish altogether. If it should be effectively and beneficently changed the people who would lie awake in sorrow for a single night could be easily gathered in one not very large room but those who would draw a long breath of relief would reach to millions.

 

We hear much of visions and I trust we shall continue to have visions and dream dreams of a fairer future for the race. But visions are one thing and visionaries are another, and the mechanical appliances of the rhetorician designed to give a picture of a present which does not exist and of a future which no man can predict are as unreal and short-lived as the steam or canvas clouds, the angels suspended on wires and the artificial lights of the stage.

 

They pass with the moment of effect and are shabby and tawdry in the daylight. Let us at least be real. Washington's entire honesty of mind and his fearless look into the face of all facts are qualities which can never go out of fashion and which we should all do well to imitate.

 

Ideals have been thrust upon us as an argument for the league until the healthy mind which rejects cant revolts from them. Are ideals confined to this deformed experiment upon a noble purpose, tainted, as it is, with bargains and tied to a peace treaty which might have been disposed of long ago to the great benefit of the world if it had not been compelled to carry this rider on its back? 'Post equitem sedet atra cura,' Horace tells us, but no blacker care ever sat behind any rider than we shall find in this covenant of doubtful and disputed interpretation as it now perches upon the treaty of peace.

 

No doubt many excellent and patriotic people see a coming fulfilment of noble ideals in the words 'league for peace.' We all respect and share these aspirations and desires, but some of us see no hope, but rather defeat, for them in this murky covenant. For we, too, have our ideals, even if we differ from those who have tried to establish a monopoly of idealism.

 

Our first ideal is our country, and we see her in the future, as in the past, giving service to all her people and to the world. Our ideal of the future is that she should continue to render that service of her own free will. She has great problems of her own to solve, very grim and perilous problems, and a right solution, if we can attain to it, would largely benefit mankind.

 

We would have our country strong to resist a peril from the West, as she has flung back the German menace from the East. We would not have our politics distracted and embittered by the dissensions of other lands. We would not have our country's vigour exhausted or her moral force abated, by everlasting meddling and muddling in every quarrel, great and small, which afflicts the world.

 

Our ideal is to make her ever stronger and better and finer, because in that way alone, as we believe, can she be of the greatest service to the world's peace and to the welfare of mankind.

 

Henry Cabot Lodge

[christo-f]

Without being personal, Casek it is becoming obvious that you actually do not know what you are talking about.

 

You cannot make a specific argument on this topic. All you can offer is things that other people have said without any clarity or pointed argument when asked for it.

 

All the above says in paraphrased form is "The idea is good but it won't work and I don't want it". It does not define that that the LEague of Nations was not envisioned to support sovereignty, it actually says that it WAS but argued that it wouldn't work.

 

 

Casek, I believe that you form ideas based on partial information and allow yourself to be carried away by emotion and morality. However when you are challenged on this you feign patriotism and almost biblical righteousness in your beliefs that implies the person who doesn't agree with them is immoral or lacking of honest reverence. But you rarely, if ever can clarify your argument or make it yourself. You copy paste other people's stuff (which most of the time turns out to be irrelevant as the above example) because you can not actually do it yourself.

 

When further challenged, like I am doing now, you either create a strawman argument to try and avoid responsibility for what you have said/copy pasted or you use ridicule, like you have above by pasting the whole thing as if suggesting the reader is not sharp enough to grasp the obvious, in order to discredit the person challenging you.

 

 

You will do everything you can to avoid clarifying and being responsible for your opinions and claims, I believe because you don't properly understand them.

 

 

 

Once again this is not personal as we both know we could talk about other things unconnected to this subject and not have a problem with each other and what I am saying here reflects only on how you discuss things, not the person you are.

[lord_casek]

Speech Opposing the League of Nations (1919)

 

Mr. President, all people, men and women alike, who are capable of connected thought abhor war and desire nothing so much as to make secure the future peace of the world.… We ought to lay aside once and for all the unfounded and really evil suggestion that because men differ as to the best method of securing the world’s peace in the future, anyone is against permanent peace, if it can be obtained, among all the nations of mankind.… We all earnestly desire to advance toward the preservation of the world’s peace, and difference in method makes no distinction in purpose.… No question has ever confronted the United States Senate which equals in importance that which is involved in the league of nations intended to secure the future peace of the world. There should be no undue haste in considering it. My one desire is that not only the Senate, which is charged with responsibility, but that the press and the people of the country should investigate every proposal with the utmost thoroughness and weigh them all carefully before they make up their minds.…

 

In the first place, the terms of the league … must be so plain and so explicit that no man can misunderstand them.… The Senate can take no action upon it, but it lies open before us for criticism and discussion. What is said in the Senate ought to be placed before the peace conference and published in Paris, so that the foreign Governments may be informed as to the various views expressed here.

 

In this draft prepared for a constitution of a league of nations,… there is hardly a clause about the interpretation of which men do not already differ. As it stands there is serious danger that the very nations which sign the constitution of the league will quarrel about the meaning of the various articles before a twelvemonth has passed. It seems to have been very hastily drafted, and the result is crudeness and looseness of expression, unintentional, I hope. There are certainly many doubtful passages and open questions obvious in the articles which can not be settled by individual inference, but which must be made so clear and so distinct that we may all understand the exact meaning of the instrument to which we are asked to set our hands. The language of these articles does not appear to me to have the precision and unmistakable character which a constitution, a treaty, or a law ought to present.… Arguments and historical facts have no place in a statute or a treaty. Statutory and legal language must assert and command, not argue and describe. I press this point because there is nothing so vital to the peace of the world as the sanctity of treaties. The suggestion that we can safely sign because we can always violate or abrogate is fatal not only to any league but to peace itself. You can not found world peace upon the cynical “scrap of paper” doctrine so dear to Germany. To whatever instrument the United States sets its hand it must carry out the provisions of that instrument to the last jot and tittle, and observe it absolutely both in letter and in spirit. If this is not done the instrument will become a source of controversy instead of agreement, of dissension instead of harmony. This is all the more essential because it is evident, although not expressly stated, that this league is intended to be indissoluble, for there is no provision for its termination or for the withdrawal of any signatory. We are left to infer that any nation withdrawing from the league exposes itself to penalties and probably to war. Therefore, before we ratify, the terms and language in which the terms are stated must be exact and precise, as free from any possibility of conflicting interpretations, as it is possible to make them.

 

The explanation or interpretation of any of these doubtful passages is not sufficient if made by one man, whether that man be the President of the United States, or a Senator, or anyone else. These questions and doubts must be answered and removed by the instrument itself.

 

It is to be remembered that if there is any dispute about the terms of this constitution there is no court provided that I can find to pass upon differences of opinion as to the terms of the constitution itself. There is no court to fulfill the function which our Supreme Court fulfills. There is provision for tribunals to decide questions submitted for arbitration, but there is no authority to decide differing interpretations as to the terms of the instrument itself.…

 

I now come to questions of substance, which seem to me to demand the most careful thought of the entire American people, and particularly of those charged with the responsibility of ratification. We abandon entirely by the proposed constitution the policy laid down by Washington in his Farewell Address and the Monroe doctrine.… I know that some of the ardent advocates of the plan submitted to us regard any suggestion of the importance of the Washington policy as foolish and irrelevant.… Perhaps the time has come when the policies of Washington should be abandoned; but if we are to cast them aside I think that at least it should be done respectfully and with a sense of gratitude to the great man who formulated them. For nearly a century and a quarter the policies laid down in the Farewell Address have been followed and adhered to by the Government of the United States and by the American people. I doubt if any purely political declaration has ever been observed by any people for so long a time. The principles of the Farewell Address in regard to our foreign relations have been sustained and acted upon by the American people down to the present moment. Washington declared against permanent alliances.… He did not close the door on temporary alliances for particular purposes. Our entry in the great war just closed was entirely in accord with and violated in no respect the policy laid down by Washington. When we went to war with Germany we made no treaties with the nations engaged in the war against the German Government. The President was so careful in this direction that he did not permit himself ever to refer to the nations by whose side we fought as “allies,” but always as “nations associated with us in the war.”… Now, in the twinkling of an eye, while passion and emotion reign, the Washington policy is to be entirely laid aside and we are to enter upon a permanent and indissoluble alliance. That which we refuse to do in war we are to do in peace, deliberately, coolly, and with no war exigency. Let us not overlook the profound gravity of this step.

 

Washington was not only a very great man but he was also a very wise man. He looked far into the future and he never omitted human nature from his calculations.… He was so great a man that the fact that this country had produced him was enough of itself to justify the Revolution and our existence as a Nation. Do not think that I overstate this in the fondness of patriotism and with the partiality of one of his countrymen. The opinion I have expressed is the opinion of the world.…

 

But if we put aside forever the Washington policy in regard to our foreign relations we must always remember that it carries with it the corollary known as the Monroe doctrine. Under the terms of this league draft reported by the committee to the peace conference the Monroe doctrine disappears. It has been our cherished guide and guard for nearly a century. The Monroe doctrine is based on the principle of self-preservation. To say that it is a question of protecting the boundaries, the political integrity, or the American States, is not to state the Monroe doctrine.… The real essence of that doctrine is that American questions shall be settled by Americans alone; that the Americas shall be separated from Europe in purely American questions. That is the vital principle of the doctrine.

 

I have seen it said that the Monroe doctrine is preserved under article 10 [calling for a collective security agreement among League members]; that we do not abandon the Monroe doctrine, we merely extend it to all the world. How anyone can say this passes my comprehension. The Monroe doctrine exists solely for the protection of the American Hemisphere, and to that hemisphere it was limited. If you extend it to all the world, it ceases to exist,… Under this draft of the constitution of the league of nations, American questions and European questions and Asian and African questions are all alike put within the control and jurisdiction of the league. Europe will have the right to take part in the settlement of all American questions, and we, of course, shall have the right to share in the settlement of all questions in Europe and Asia and Africa.… Perhaps the time has come when it is necessary to do this, but it is a very grave step, and I wish now merely to point out that the American people ought never to abandon the Washington policy and the Monroe doctrine without being perfectly certain that they earnestly wish to do so. Standing always firmly by these great policies, we have thriven and prospered and have done more to preserve the world’s peace than any nation, league, or alliance which ever existed. For this reason I ask the press and the public and, of course, the Senate to consider well the gravity of this proposition before it takes the heavy responsibility of finally casting aside these policies which we have adhered to for a century and more and under which we have greatly served the cause of peace both at home and abroad.

[lord_casek]

When further challenged, like I am doing now, you either create a strawman argument to try and avoid responsibility for what you have said/copy pasted or you use ridicule, like you have above by pasting the whole thing as if suggesting the reader is not sharp enough to grasp the obvious, in order to discredit the person challenging you.

 

 

You will do everything you can to avoid clarifying and being responsible for your opinions and claims, I believe because you don't properly understand them.

 

 

 

Once again this is not personal as we both know we could talk about other things unconnected to this subject and not have a problem with each other and what I am saying here reflects only on how you discuss things, not the person you are.

 

 

You asked for the relevant part, that is the relevant part.

 

We're talking about the League of Nations, no? I presented to you an argument that was made against them in their own time.

 

 

Also: Posted above is Cabot Lodge's argument against the LoN which I agree with. To give any number of nations the right to meddle in our affairs, as is the like for us, is a mistake. I'm pretty sure I have said this before.

 

Also: Why do I need to bring a long winded collection of paragraphs to the table when I can state my views with a few sentences?

Do I need to use more big words? Write a bunch of shit just to explain one simple point? Not hardly.

 

Ostentatious.

 

There's your big word.

[christo-f]

The only way that it is relevant to what I said was that it was discussing the LoN.

 

I said that it was made to support sovereignty, you posted something from a guy who was saying that he didn't want it because he felt that it wouldn't work. You neither sais no, it was not designed to support sovereignty or that it was. In fact what you posted implicitly supported what I said because Lodge said that the idea was good (supporting sovereignty by denying invasion) but that it just wouldn't work. So unless you were agreeing with me I am still at a loss as to how it relates to my claim other than that it discusses the issue of LoN.

 

This second piece, however may be different. At a quick glance it seems to have possibility of relevance.

 

Assuming that you've read it and you know where the parts are that refute my argument that the LoN was initially designed to protect sovereignty by denying the ability of invasion, can you state that and paste it below, please.

 

 

Remember, I am not saying that the LoN would support sovereignty, I'm saying that is what it was conceived for. After WW1 people wanted to avoid war re-occurring so they endeavored to create a mechanism that forced states to collectively act against any other that was impinging against another's sovereignty by invasion.

 

I assume that you are arguing against that, can you please direct me to the exact passage in the above piece that argues that the LoN was not conceived in order to protect sovereignty.

 

 

 

Goddamnit, I just read it anyway while making this post and I can see a relevant part but it is very much open to argument. But I will not put words in you mouth I will let you point out what you feel is relevant yourself.