{sigh}

You're overreacting just a tad, there, aren't you, Bill?

Nope, I'd say he's got it about right. My arguments are neither idealistic nor fallacious. After reading your second paragraph I completely stopped reading as well--it was obvious you had nothing of value to say.

So long as the US is a member of this body, so long as other free democratic nations are members of this body, we are completely entitled to take whatever position we please whenever a question of adding new members or granting special recognition to existing members comes up.

So long as the Security Council exists, and so long as we are members, we must oppose at every turn efforts to attempt to grant special privileges and recognition to thugs and tyrants. Period, end of story. If you disagree it's to your deep shame.

So long as the Security Council exists, and so long as we are members, we must oppose at every turn efforts to attempt to grant special privileges and recognition to thugs and tyrants. Period, end of story. If you disagree it's to your deep shame.

That, Dean, is a straw man. The whole point of my "30,000-word treatise" was that the U.N. doesn't do anything remotely like what you said it does. What does happen is the normal gridlock of any large democratic body with no real enforcement power over its members. Now, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings with my acute pompous hyperbole, but I get tired of seeing people try to smear the U.N. just because it doesn't always jump to do the U.S.'s bidding. Now do me a favor: if you're going to criticize what I say, at least take your fucking skirt off and read it rather than using the easy excuse that my intro came off as too pompous. I mean, I know neither of you two would ever write anything that seemed pompous or overbearing, because you're so concerned about coddling the feelings of your political opponents, but I'm just an Angry Librul, so I really can't help myself.

You're overreacting just a tad, there, aren't you, Bill?

No, not at all. Merely having an illustrative laugh at your expense.

Dear Mr. INDC:

Had you gone to a better school you might have learned that insulting and boring your reader employing a snotty and pedantic tone is considered quite effective in France.

Well, I believe in insulting my readers, but I do my best not to bore them.

You might be able to get away with critiquing an Oliver Willis post with such over-the-top rhetoric

Now that is hilarious. It's OK if it's directed at an acceptable target, but not at someone you like? Please.

you've compounded your bad example by swearing at people

Which you'd think might tell you something, i.e. that it wasn't pompousness driving the wording of my intro, but rather irritation at yet another righty smearing the U.N. I actually made a distinct effort to chill out as I went along, but I guess you never got to that part. Too bad, because I really don't think you would have objected so strongly to the actual substance of my post.

Go eat some bbq and watch some fireworks

Don't you know we libruls don't celebrate the 4th of July?

Had you gone to a better school you might have learned that insulting and boring your reader employing a snotty and pedantic tone is considered quite effective in France.

Christ. The snottiness was in Dean's attempt to portray the U.N. as an organization that favors tyrants and so on and so forth. It struck me as just another part of the righty narrative about the left being full of apologists for tyranny because they love socialism so much that they're willing to overlook the fact that so-called "socialist" tyrants are otherwise the polar opposite of everything the left stands for.

I'd revised my previous long comment, as you see. Not sure why you saw the old one. The Oliver Willis comment was used half-joking. Being a "librul," I suppose you have trouble catching that.

But a more serious point is that yes, it's possible to be so utterly dismissive of a post that is written with ridiculous ad hominem or hyperbole or whatever. Doesn't have to do with "not agree[ing]" as much as whether the effort is ridiculous. Think of a mentally challenged kid writing political science columns. Think of Oliver Willis writing "all Republicans are evil thieves." Not every silly opinion deserves equal respect.

But your intro critiquing Dean's comment was simply too hubristic and hyperbolic. By the way, to repeat from the previous comment - you are NOT a liberal. You are an isolationist Republican, circa 1940. You're a Buchananite.

No, Bill, I'm not a Buchananite at all, and to be honest, I have absolutely no idea where you're getting that impression from anything I've said. My argument was not, repeat not that we should ignore tyranny; my argument was that the U.N. does not intentionally support tyranny. I was arguing against the fairly widespread righty notion that the U.N. is pointless because it doesn't willingly act as an extension of U.S. foreign policy. My own personal view of the U.N.? It sickens me that in multiple instances, U.N. troops have utterly failed to stop genocidal rampages like Srebrenica, or even carefully planned genocides like Rwanda.

Really, if you're so far off in your assessment of my position that you can make a statement like "you're a Buchananite" (assuming it's in good faith and not just a cheap shot), then there's really no point in continuing this debate. I just couldn't leave that one hanging without correcting your wild misrepresentation.

Who's the head of the UN Human Rights Commission, again?

You don't have a position that addresses what Dean mentions. From his post:

It may be necessary for reasons of pragmatism to have dealings with such regimes, even to hold our noses and be friendly with them at times. But it is high time we stop coddling them or pretending that they are in any way "legitimate." They rule solely by brutality. On 9/11 we saw the folly of pretending that such regimes make the world more "secure" just because they are "stable."

OH, HOW UNREASONABLE!

my argument was that the U.N. does not intentionally support tyranny.

Like when Libya was elected to chair the Human Rights Commission in January 2003? That has nothing to do with complaining about not being "an extension of US policy." How about Sudan's election to the HR Commission? Algeria? Syria? Vietnam?

You are correct about one thing: "there's really no point in continuing this debate."

No one needs to smear the UN, it does quite well on its own.

The only thing of value to come out of the organization WAS it's ability to centralize charity efforts...but even that has erroded into a parasites picnic as evidenced by the UN's unconscionable non-efforts in the wake of the tsunami last December. The US and Australia did ALL the heavy lifting and the UN then tried to take credit for themselves.

And need I also mention the Oil-for-food debacle or the widespread/ignored sex scandals??

If the UN's mission were to ostensibily bring the bad boys into polite company and hope that good stuff would rub off on 'em, they've failed. Specifically because the UN has enabled the bad boys to the point where they are running the place to their specifications and the enablers want "peace and security" at all costs.

It's as if the gangbangers of Los Angeles have taken over UCLA and are running the campus from the Chancelor's office with the Chancelor's cooperation.

The UN needs to be dissolved. Period. Yesterday. And a United Democratic Nations take its place where genocidal dictatorships are outside the pale.

Il Non Carb, your post revealed your own implicit acceptance of the legitimacy of tyrany:

These entities, much like Senators, are in a constant battle to promote the interests of their constituencies, i.e. the citizens of the countries they represent.

You're saying that the diplomats from North Korea, Iran, and Sudan really are representing the interests of their countries' citizens. By pretending these regimes are actually representative of their people, you basically help prove Dean's point.

Darleen -

Now I don't quite agree with this -

The UN needs to be dissolved. Period. Yesterday.

But that being said, I don't think that your comment is "completely fallacious and utterly without merit," nor do I think that you show "a total lack of understanding ... that I can't even begin to fathom."

No, JSchuler, I was not referring to the representatives from countries like North Korea, Iran, and Sudan. I was referring to the fact that each representative from each nation makes decisions based on what he or she considers to be "national interests". Now certainly, the definition of "national interests" is rather flexible, and does often mean "the interests of the ruling elite". But that was not my point at all. My point was that the nations who would participate in any sort of humanitarian intervention cannot make the decision to do so on purely idealistic grounds, much as it would be nice if they could. And again, as I said in the original comment that everyone's been too OUTRAGED to read, most other countries, even the democratic ones, just don't have as much to spare when it comes to military intervention for humanitarian purposes.

Really, this is such a strange discussion to be having with a bunch of right-wingers. You guys constantly criticize the left for unpragmatic argumentation with regard to foreign policy, but here you are acting as if it would be the slightest bit practical for the U.N. to intervene militarily or otherwise in every tyrannical regime around the world; not only that, but you're implying that by not doing so, the U.N. is explicitly endorsing the behavior of said tyrannical regimes (or at least you're backing Dean in saying so). If you're really so concerned about "ending tyranny", and believe it's the U.N.'s responsibility to do so overnight, then riddle me this: who's going to pay for it? Which country's soldiers are going to put their lives on the line? How are you going to define "tyrannical" (because I've heard righties describe certain European social democracies in similarly hyperbolic terms)? More specifically, how are you going to get China to agree to any of this (because remember, China has a veto just like we do)?

See, this is why I interpret most of your arguments as being essentially like those of Darleen above: the U.N. should be dissolved. The natural conclusion of this line of argument is that the U.N. has "outlived its usefulness". That's what I objected to in Dean's original post, and that's why my intro was harsh enough to set all your sensitive little hearts aflutter.

Well, I believe in insulting my readers, but I do my best not to bore them.

Keep up the good work insulting Ill Non Carb, Bill. He's boring this reader to an amazing degree.

Yes Il Non Carb, you were. You made absolutely no distinction between representatives from democracies and those from non-democracies, and you used "id est" to confirm the idea that diplomats cannot help but be representatives of their people. You did not say "national interests," you were specific that they acted in the interests of the citizens.

You guys constantly criticize the left for unpragmatic argumentation with regard to foreign policy, but here you are acting as if it would be the slightest bit practical for the U.N. to intervene militarily or otherwise in every tyrannical regime around the world

This is a nice straw man arguement here. We're not saying the UN has to intervene militarily in every situation. But Lefties are saying now that the UN is the ONLY source of international legitimacy, and without its approval the US cannot act in its national interests. And yes, the UN does endorse beligerant behavior, as it's reaction to any conflict is to immediately blame both sides equally for any conflict. It calls for both sides to lay down their arms, which would naturally reward the beligerant nation with the territory that it had seized from the victim. All that would be nice is for the UN to call a spade a spade. But it can't do that as its too busy passing resolutions condemning Isreal for whatever charges the PA has manufactured (e.g. Jenin).

More specifically, how are you going to get China to agree to any of this (because remember, China has a veto just like we do)?

Thank you for proving the point! The UN is an impotent organization due to the inclusion of non-democracies. Since this organization is now seen by a good deal of Euroweenies as being the source of international legitimacy which the US should tie its foreign policy to, it is now a threat to global security and American soveriegnty. The UN should be completely dissolved, and nothing should be errected to take its place, not even a democracies only club. The US has shown that it is perfectly capable of forging international coalitions when it needs to outside of a permanent global organization. A replacement to the UN would be unnecessary to global security and just be another potential threat to soveriegnty.

but here you are acting as if it would be the slightest bit practical for the U.N. to intervene militarily or otherwise in every tyrannical regime around the world; not only that, but you're implying that by not doing so, the U.N. is explicitly endorsing the behavior of said tyrannical regimes (or at least you're backing Dean in saying so).

No we're not. That is one implication of Dean's post that you've decided to extrapolate to represent the entire argument that you're fighting against. Which again, is hyperbolic nonsense.

The UN endorses the behavior of tyrannical regimes when it considers them for a spot on the security council or appoints the worst human rights abusers to its commission on human rights.

There is a continuum between the joke that it is now and a completely idealistic vision of a UN that only supports Democracies and smashes tyranny. As it is, though Dean's post comes closer to the idealistic vision of the UN, his argumentation for moving in that direction is eminently cogent.

And by your own admission, your hyperbole against his post is a symptom of your impatience with a "standard right wing" argument that you don't like. It seems fairly clear that you are less advocating a deeply held position than you are fighting against a despised archetype.

As it is, I had no idea that you were a liberal until you told me - from the first two paragraphs of your initial comment, I though you were one of the strident paleo-cons that drop by on occasion.

Go read about John F Kennedy's vision for the application of American power - potentially idealistic and practical, all at the same time.

It seems fairly clear that you are less advocating a deeply held position than you are fighting against a despised archetype.

That's a fair statement, with the additional context of pointing out that I really did interpret Dean's post as representing that archetype.

As it is, I had no idea that you were a liberal until you told me - from the first two paragraphs of your initial comment, I though you were one of the strident paleo-cons that drop by on occasion.

I assume you're referring to this sentence:

Not only that, but to make this kind of argument is to effectively say that the UN needs to be more powerful than it already is, which is a pretty strange position for a libertarian right-winger to take.

My point was not to say that I disagree with the notion of giving the U.N. more power; it was to say that for Dean to criticize the U.N. in the manner he was criticizing it was to effectively advocate that the U.N. needs to have a greater ability to deal with tyrants... which is, as I said, a strange position for a libertarian righty to take, because usually the complaint on the right is that the U.N. takes too much national sovereignty away from the U.S.

Go read about John F Kennedy's vision for the application of American power - potentially idealistic and practical, all at the same time.

Yes, and it seems to me that the least practical, most divisive way to go about stating a vision for the application of American power is to disingenuously accuse the only body through which that power can be channeled legimately of actively supporting tyrants. It's disingenuous because Dean has to know that the functioning of an institution as complex and containing as many parties with conflicting interests as the U.N. is simply not that simple. Dean's statement was pure demagoguery, and so yes, I reacted to it with a little bluster of my own. But those are two separate issues. My emotional response does not undermine the substance of my position, or at least it shouldn't.

I will say this: you guys have a point that there are elements within the U.N. who are implacably opposed to any positive application of American power, or at least of having that application of power interpreted in a positive way. But those are elements - "bad apples", if you will - and their anti-Americanism should not be cynically used to tarnish the U.N. as a whole.

You made absolutely no distinction between representatives from democracies and those from non-democracies, and you used "id est" to confirm the idea that diplomats cannot help but be representatives of their people. You did not say "national interests," you were specific that they acted in the interests of the citizens.

This is pretty much the most ridiculous argument yet. Let's just clear it up right now: although I failed to specifically enumerate the nations whose "representatives" do not "represent" the interests of their people, I do in fact recognize that said nations and representatives exist. However, I also recognize that said nations are likely a subset of the full U.N. membership, so we can therefore say that some percentage of representatives do in fact attempt to represent the best interests of their people. We can also say that it's not always necessarily a simple matter to commit national resources to the elimination of tyranny in other countries. Which yields a conclusion that it may not always be possible, in fact it may be frequently impossible, to obtain the consensus required to undertake an intervention against a tyrannical leader, even if the institution as a whole, and a majority of its members individually, do not in any way favor the existence of tyranny, and are in fact ideologically, morally, economically, and emotionally opposed to it.

Does that clarify things for you, or are you going to continue to cling to that ridiculous red herring of an argument?

Yes, and it seems to me that the least practical, most divisive way to go about stating a vision for the application of American power is to disingenuously accuse the only body through which that power can be channeled legimately of actively supporting tyrants.

O.mi.gawd.

Any exercise of American "power" without the expressed approval of the likes of Kofi and his band of raping thieves is illegitimate.

Holy Mary MoG, Carb-boy, you coulda saved us a whole lot of time and a whole lot of bandwidth if you had stated upfront that, in your opinion, American sovereignty exists only at the pleasure of the UN.

feh.

First off Il Non Carb, when you realize that you've said something you didn't mean to say, the proper response is not to deny that you said it, but to acknowledge your mistake. So the only thing ridiculous about my argument was that I had to make it because you apparently don't understand English (and perhaps use Latin while ignorant of its meaning).

Secondly, since you continue to talk about the need to commit resources, how much does it cost to call a murderous regime a murderous regime? That's all that us crazy Right-wing-nuts want. See, you cling to the notion that the Right wants the UN to go around solving the world's problems. In fact, it is the UN, encouraged by European thinking, which sees itself as possessing this job (just listen to Kofi Annan once in a while) and seeks to condemn those who act without the blessing of the Security Council. The Right claims that sovereign states still retain the right to declare war. What the Right wants is for the UN to stop acting as a roadblock to those who choose to enforce global security. The easiest way for this to happen is for eighteen acres of Manhattan to be returned to the city for useful development.

See? No claim that countries must act, just that they should stop claiming that despotic, murdering regimes are legitimate and that it is unjust for anyone to remove them.

First off JSchuler, if you'll come down off your linguistic horse for just one second, I'll try again to walk you slowly through why I wasn't making the totally irrelevant point you insist I was making:

1) There are members of the UN who are not tyrannical regimes.

2) These nations constitute the only subset of UN members who are likely to participate in any action designed to remove a tyrannical regime.

3) However, because these nations do not have unlimited resources, and because they are democratic and cannot always achieve internal consensus on foreign policy, they may not be willing to commit resources to removing tyrannical regimes.

4) Therefore, the simple fact that these states do not in fact remove tyrannical regimes on a regular basis does NOT mean that they believe "you can butcher as many children as you want, torture as many people as you like, crush as many minorities as you please, treat your women like chattel, lobotomize and execute your homosexuals, grind every religious minority into the dirt, break as many bones and chop off as many limbs as you see fit, and obliterate every human freedom that annoys you: just don't bother your neigbors."

Secondly, since you continue to talk about the need to commit resources, how much does it cost to call a murderous regime a murderous regime? That's all that us crazy Right-wing-nuts want.

So now you're saying the U.N. should be all talk and no action? Please. You're twisting yourself into knots trying to rationalize attacking the U.N., when what you really mean is

What the Right wants is for the UN to stop acting as a roadblock to those who choose to enforce global security. The easiest way for this to happen is for eighteen acres of Manhattan to be returned to the city for useful development.

You are arguing for dissolution of the U.N., just as I believe Dean was. Not only that, but you're reinforcing the point I made in my original comment about the whole reason for the creation of the U.N. in the first place: the tendency of powerful nations to reinterpret the phrase "enforce global security" in whatever way justifies their foreign policy. The U.N. acts as a check on that impulse, for the express purpose of preventing mass-scale wars. Again, some historical perspective really is needed here.

Non Il Carb, your point is irrelevant because no one is asking those nations to commit resources. My point was relevant because, at the time, you were indeed asserting that dictatorships were legitimate respresentatives of their people. You have since retracted this, although you do so by pretending you never said it, which is a demonstrably false claim.

So now you're saying the U.N. should be all talk and no action? Please. You're twisting yourself into knots trying to rationalize attacking the U.N.

What do you mean "now?" That's what I've always been saying. I've been very consistent in my desire for the UN to cease existing. How is that tying myself in knots? There is absolutely zero need for a body like the UN. If it was all talk and nobody bought in to the illusion that it had any legitimacy at all as a legal body, all would be well as it wouldn't hurt anything.

Not only that, but you're reinforcing the point I made in my original comment about the whole reason for the creation of the U.N. in the first place: the tendency of powerful nations to reinterpret the phrase "enforce global security" in whatever way justifies their foreign policy.

Except you ignore that fact that the only countries who actually care about the opinion of the UN are democracies. See Saddam's reactions to the piles of resolutions passed against him for a demonstration on how tyrants react. The only thing that restrains dictatorships is the fear that if they step out of line that they will not be around the next day. The UN is dangerous because it allays their fears by restraining democratic nations. But by all means, feel free to provide a single example where the UN acted as a deterant to a non-democratic body. I won't hold my breath.

My point was relevant because, at the time, you were indeed asserting that dictatorships were legitimate respresentatives of their people.

...At which point my eyes glazed over, my left leg started twitching, and I lapsed into acute pompous hyperbolic shock, rendering me unable to read another word.

Honestly, do you actually even think before you write? As in, consider how likely it is that I would base an argument on the proposition that tyrannical dictators are legitimate representatives of their people? Is it possible you're that stupid? I doubt it. I think you're just intentionally provoking me, and trying to gloss over the fact that at least in your case, I was right about the real point of your arguments being that we should just brush aside 60 years of international diplomacy because the U.N. is insufficiently fervent about promoting U.S. interests. My position may or may not be the correct one, but your straw men are so transparent that I think you're actually helping my case.

Honestly, do you actually even think before you write? As in, consider how likely it is that I would base an argument on the proposition that tyrannical dictators are legitimate representatives of their people?

Yup, I thought about it, and considering I don't know anything about you except from what you wrote, which could only have been interpreted in one way, I went with it.

Is it possible you're that stupid?

Nope, but it was a distinct possibility at the time that you were. In fact, since you're still in the non-denial denial stage, the jury is still out on that decision.

I think you're just intentionally provoking me, and trying to gloss over the fact that at least in your case, I was right about the real point of your arguments being that we should just brush aside 60 years of international diplomacy because the U.N. is insufficiently fervent about promoting U.S. interests.

Gloss over? So I'm trying to avoid a possition which I repeatedly and unequivocally assert at every opportunity? Yes, that is the point of my argument. Coincidentally, it's a point that you've been highly unsuccessful at dealing with.

In fact, since you're still in the non-denial denial stage

What does that even mean? You took something I wrote and deliberately put a cartoonish, self-serving fantasy interpretation on it, and I explained in plain English how wrong you were. Is there something I'm missing here? Or do you just not understand English very well? ARE YOU A FOR'NER!?