TW, you have me confused (not hard to do). The US is a participant in the World Court that settles disagreements among member nations who bring their case to the court. We are not a member of the International Criminal Court, which DOES TRY INDIVIDUALS, not nations.

Reasoned response: We don't trust the UN. We will not submit our citizens to trial by a body dominated by 3rd world dictators. We will not subject our President or military leaders to trial by foreign governments for war crimes; we will handle those ourselves.

Many US citizens, maybe even a majority in this part of the country, believe the UN is a threat to world security and would prefer the US withdraw its membership. The rest see the UN as a toothless debating society, but it doesn't hurt to talk. Nobody sees any great advantage to membership or support other than the appearance of a willingness to participate. Many see a great danger in the US being pulled into even more conflicts, treaty entanglements and such.

I suspect Russia, China, India feel the same way.

Britain, Australia, Poland and Denmark provided troops. It was in support of/enforcement of UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Pretty much nobody supported Iraq, the debate was over whether or not action should be taken or whether the western world should continue the debate. As I posted earlier, I think Iraqi Freedom was ill advised and patience would have been a better course of action.

I stand corrected. We are pretty ugly.

Other participants in Viet Nam were Australia, South Korea, New Zealand, Phillipines, & Thailand... all nations who were geographically threatened by a rapidly spreading Communism supported by Russia and China. This needs to be viewed in terms of the cold war; right or wrong that was the thinking at the time.

perhaps I'm confused as well - it's Christmas, almost; too lazy for research. :D

the UN (i.e., the body that was created expressly to regulate and rationalize international norms) is a threat to world security? that's kind of like saying that congress is a threat to democracy...

look, AE, I get tired of this debate. There is a certain large section of the US population (which you apparently belong to) which has a Wild West attitude towards law and order. in other words, they are decidedly pro-law, but what that means is that they prefer to shoot first, in the firm conviction that they have a moral right to shoot, and let the boring legal stuff work itself out later. There is another large section of the US population (which I apparently belong to) which believes that the 'shoot first' mentality has some validity in moments of intense threat, but has almost no place in government. It's not law and order, it's self-righteous mayhem masquerading as law and order. The international arena is not the OK corral, and there are almost always better mechanisms for solving problems than pulling a high-nooner.

up until sometime after WWII, the US followed a T. Roosevelt 'walk softly and carry a big stick' policy; I have no idea why we shifted to a 'grab the biggest stick you can find and smack someone with it' policy, but I think it's STUPID and UNCIVILIZED. and sure, I understand the psychology of it - you all want to say "The US is the biggest, baddest mofo in these here parts: we are the law, and anyone who doesn't respect that better watch their a$$." but that's just adolescent hormonalism run amok. adults ought to prefer reason.

in other words, I'm not the schoolmarm here, and I don't feel like trying to explain to your side of the country why it's bad to hit the other kids, regardless of what they've done. In fact, there is no way to explain it: either you guys understand it already or you don't; and if you don't, then trying to explain it will just end up (as it always seems to do, at least on Fox news...) with an endless stream of enraged self-justifications for why it's correct and proper to think with our gonads.

I mean really...

Don't think I said any of those things. Anyway, God is on our side.

Isn't that what terrorists say?

God is on everyone's side; why do people always forget that?

Come on guys, can't you find just a little humor in the comment.... it's the only one TW hadn't accused me of.

I was hoping it was a joke, but given the previous posts I wasn't going to make that assumption.
;)

what humor: God is on your side! :D seriously though, I'm not accusing you of anything. you're the one who made this a group identity issue (e.g. 'most people in this part of the country' - playing the populist card). I was just clarifying what these group identities are, so there's no confusion. You personally may not subscribe to all of the attitudes listed above, but whether or not you do, those are the attitudes that define 'your' side of the country.

frankly, the fact that many or most people believe a given thing is not really much of an endorsement - groups of people believe the damnedest things sometimes - but if you're going to pull out a collective belief as a referent in a discussion, you really shouldn't be surprised when I pull out a different viewpoint that puts your belief in context. your belief doesn't get any special standing because most people in your parts believe it (most people in my parts believe something else, yah?).

Okay... "this part of the country" was a poor choice of words on my part. I am not one of those who believes the UN is about to take over the US and establish a world government.... the "new world order."

It is one thing for the UN to make proclamations and pass resolutions, but at some point "somebody" has to implement those resolutions with their blood. It seems like the US has done more than their share of the bleeding. We don't want to be the world's policeman, but somebody has to take the lead or nothing happens. Just to name a few, and in no particular order:

The Korean War. Somalia (delivering food). Beirut Barracks (UN peace keeping force). Kosovo (genocide). Partition of Palestine (resulting in terrorism). And the list goes on and on. (Not suggesting any of these should or shouldn't have been done, but they are all UN initiatives.) So, yes, the UN does get us involved in some sticky situations where Americans die.

The bottom line from my point of view is simple. We live in a democracy (sorta) where we elect our leaders and they do as they choose till the next election. Our leaders are going to do some things we don't like or agree with and that is part and parcel of our system.

About all we can do is vote. Past that, we just have to live with it.... ugly American image and all. Got a better idea?

How about we elect people who understand that their way isn't necessarily the one and only American way, and that the opposition is not un-American for opposing them?

More important, how about recognizing that our leaders are being anti democracy when they portray themselves as the "pro" American party.

ok. :)

well, part of that is because we as a nation have a disproportionate share of economic and military resources - 5% of the world's population consuming 40% of its resources, remember? do you expect us to have the same military involvement in UN actions as a nation like Belgium (which would struggle to afford a single B1 bomber in their arsenal, and has a population roughly the size of New York City), or Kenya (which would bankrupt itself trying to make a decent fleet of outdated F-16s)? now the UN would happily allow the US to bankroll other soldiers with military hardware for peace-keeping actions, but (a) the US doesn't like to give its destructive toys to anyone else (except for a steep fee), and (b) every government is paranoid about the UN having military force of its own (per that New World Order scenario you mentioned above). That means that the US has to send its own troops to use its own military hardware in collective UN actions; that's the only way we can participate under the restrictions we ourselves place on the situation.

and frankly, the US has never shown a lot of regard for the lives of US soldiers when it comes to pointless military engagements. I really can't see any distinction between US blood being spilled because UN leaders made a bad decision and US blood being spilled because US leaders made a bad decision, except that the former is far more likely to have been discussed and debated than the latter (which just sorta seems to happen). Iraq and Afghanistan are perfect examples: if we'd left them to UN to handle, we'd probably (a) have a stable government is Afghanistan now, (b) never have gone into Iraq in the first place (except maybe to deal with the Kurdish genocide), and (c) have captured Osama bin Laden (because no one would have been wasting time and resources bombing the crap out of two entire nations).

the UN is supposed to be a form of collective action, where nations work together to decide what needs to be done and then cooperate to get it done. being a team player means sacrifices for everyone, yah?

that's fine, except we can no longer afford to live in a solipsistic, US-centric worldview. whether we like it or not, it's a global world now, and our nation needs to make (and stick to) some global commitments.

Exactly so. Still the leadership thing comes with an ugly American image and a loss of US lives.

Correct, but I don't have to like it.

Dead is dead regardless of which bureaucrats made the decision.... all the same to the GIs. Our military understands war/armed conflict is simply an extension of foreign policy.... that is, politics.

Except for those with a large military... they get a veto over that majority rule thing. Reality has to be recognized.

Some of those commitments worry me, but I suspect we'll stick with them.

Tell that to the UAW.:)

What have you got against hard working Americans earning a decent living? Isn't the real problem that non-UAW workers are being robbed by their employers?

They should take it up with the UN. :)

wow - I didn't realize you were a marxist. interesting... :)

"When avoiding the mistakes our parents made, we often make the mistakes our parents avoided." --unknown

But it's a U.S. problem. We're allowing companies to buy labor globally but sell locally. That's a threat to National Security because it externalizes costs such as healthcare and retirement to the taxpayers.

It is a problem. It does externalize costs by pushing US labor to subsist on the same wages and benefits as other nations, and by default the taxpayers pick up some of the tab. Shall we raise taxes on those who import goods and those who export jobs? Tariffs? Protectionism? Or should we keep buying those cheap imports?

I don't have a good answer either, except we best get more productive or the UAW's fate is what we're all looking at. (BTW, I carried a union card for a few years.... I do support fair wages and fair treatment of workers.)

I would heavily tax those who profit off of cheap labor. Call it anything you like but profit should be made by adding value, not stealing from workers.