Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
i wish you would have read my post with more care.
|
I did read your post. I believe there is a possibility that you did not read my response.
Quote:
|
having the U.N. as a government entity that has juridiction over the entire world is very clearly different from the U.S. federal government over the states in the union. the U.S. government has alliances and the influence of competing governments to check it's power.
|
There is no other country that can or will tell the U.S. Federal gov't how much money to give to the state of Ohio. No country can tell the Federal gov't to illegalize or legalize the death penalty for all 50 states. The Federal gov't is the supreme authority over all 50 states of the U.S., bowing to no one other than the people that it represents.
And that is exactly what the U.N. is designed to be for the States of the world.
There is no difference between the U.N. governing the world vs. the Federal gov't governing the 50 States of the U.S., other than it being the next level of democratic organization.
Quote:
|
the U.S. is actively engaged in all parts of the world because it must be. because unless the world's greatest superpower gives it's stamp-of-approval on a deal it often loses legitimacy, because we have the wealth to genuinely help people (and i'd love to see us do more), because the U.S. is a leader in the world and not a follower. if leadership is needed then i'd much prefer that the U.S. take burden.
|
The U.S. cannot lead because its agenda will never be an agenda composed of the power of the people it proposes to lead. The U.N. is the only organization capable of leading in that capacity. What you are describing is the current U.S. foreign policy - a dictatorship controlled by the U.S.
Again - hubris. "The U.S. will lead because it is good and knows best." You're asking the entire world to accept something you, yourself, would not: a governing organization over which the people have absolutely zero control.