Why do (some) liberals love the UN? (Iraq, weapons, wisdom)

[doc1]

A previous thread was directed to conservatives and their supposed opposition to the UN. To me, that question assumes that self described liberals are very much in favor of the UN. If that's the case, why?

To what extent would you have the UN involved in the actions of our duly elected officials who are looking after the interests of the United States?

Do you have strong, positive feelings towards U.S. sovereignty (assuming you're a U.S. citizen)?

[Evlevo]

I support the UN (but it is FAR too disorganized to 'love' it). A world forum is necessary.

The US and other nations should have total control over what happens inside their borders, with the exception of basic human rights... the right to have an intact body when you reach adulthood (i.e. no "female circumcisions"), no child prostitution, etc. Even these violations are usually just sanctioned. War-like stuff is about all the UN intervenes in without massive worldwide political support.

The UN comes in when a country extends past their borders with issues like trade, pollution, invasions, nuclear weapons programs, etc. A country does not check it's sovereignty at the border, but they should be mindful and considerate of other nations that they will be affecting. Just like the loud obnoxious neighbor who refuses to mow is lawn or turn his stereo down at midnight (because it's HIS property, after all) Countries can have a negative effect on other countries. The UN is an imperfect place (but still the best we have got) because everyone has a different idea of what is "fair".

It isn't cited very often, but the U.N. provided much needed "venting and cooling off" during the cold war.

The power to "fix" the UN would also be the setting to create a one world dictator... and I can certainly live with a little imperfection!

[doc1]

Originally Posted by Evlevo

I support the UN (but it is FAR too disorganized to 'love' it). A world forum is necessary.

The US and other nations should have total control over what happens inside their borders, with the exception of basic human rights... the right to have an intact body when you reach adulthood (i.e. no "female circumcisions"), no child prostitution, etc. Even these violations are usually just sanctioned. War-like stuff is about all the UN intervenes in without massive worldwide political support.

The UN comes in when a country extends past their borders with issues like trade, pollution, invasions, nuclear weapons programs, etc. A country does not check it's sovereignty at the border, but they should be mindful and considerate of other nations that they will be affecting. Just like the loud obnoxious neighbor who refuses to mow is lawn or turn his stereo down at midnight (because it's HIS property, after all) Countries can have a negative effect on other countries. The UN is an imperfect place (but still the best we have got) because everyone has a different idea of what is "fair".

It isn't cited very often, but the U.N. provided much needed "venting and cooling off" during the cold war.

The power to "fix" the UN would also be the setting to create a one world dictator... and I can certainly live with a little imperfection!

I understand your points but their track record is abysmal.

Too disorganized is a gross understatenment.

They've accomplished nothing in terms of the various slaughterhouses of the third world. No way I want my family's or nation's security in their hands.

But hey, maybe Darfur will be the UN's finest hour. They ought to hurry though while there's people left to save.

[happyappy]

I’m a liberal by MY definition of liberal, so I suppose posting here is acceptable. Some people have suggested I’m a Jeffersonian Liberal; maybe so. I haven’t read the thread you mentioned regarding conservative views of the UN, but now I’ll have to!

I agree that the UN is a necessary sounding board. This is a global economy and we’re all part of the global neighborhood. But I don’t want to live in a neighborhood that has an association whose intent is to create sameness. If we live by the common-sense rule that we all should enjoy our liberties as long as we don’t sacrifice the equal liberties of others in the process, then we don’t need such an association.

However, there are neighbors who drive too fast when children are playing in the street and sometimes children don’t get to grow up because of it. So something has to be done about that activity, but it is best done by a group within the neighborhood. One never knows but that most of the neighborhood believes driving fast is acceptable and that children should not be playing in the street. In such a case, it may be time to put up a for-sale sign and move on.

Of course, we aren’t going to move from the US to another neighborhood; this is it—no more new frontiers. So acting unilaterally carries the same dangers as it might in the metaphorical neighborhood above.

The UN is a good meeting place if we care enough about it to make it more effective. NOT being willing to participate with others in the neighborhood will carry with it long-term ramifications that we’ll have to deal with at some point.

But making the UN a better meeting place will take vigilance and effort. If we can manage to be vigilant and expend effort with the UN and at the same time in our own house and yard, then that’s quite an admirable accomplishment. Better, let’s be vigilant and expend more effort in our own house and yard and display our visible accomplishments as the example by which others in the neighborhood MIGHT CHOOSE to live.

I’ve previously given my opinion of how our foreign policy should be conducted:

We will be excellent trading partners in this global community, you will find us to be helpful, to be good suppliers, to be good customers, to be willing participants in doing our part to help improve the neighborhood, BUT DON’T LET YOUR RABID DOGS LOOSE IN OUR YARD. There is only one recourse for rabid dogs as the disease cannot be cured—it can only be prevented—and you must deal with this potential problem so that we are not forced to call animal control.

Animal control is the UN. If most of the rest of the neighbors agree that the rabid dogs are a danger and must be dealt with, then so be it. There may be neighbors who don’t believe the dogs are rabid and are willing to have the dogs wander their yards, so animal control may decide to confine them to those yards—but confine them they should.

If animal control is so ineffective as to be unable to deal with the rabid dogs, then we must ensure they don’t get into our yard again. By guarding our yard and home effectively, we can keep the dogs out. The other choice is to chase after the dogs through the neighborhood. If the neighbors agree that it’s acceptable to traverse their yards to find the dogs, then it makes the job easier. But if they don’t and we do it anyway, another problem has developed, maybe multiple problems depending on the yards that have been damaged.

If we’re in the wrong yard and grab the wrong dogs, another problem develops. Fairly soon, the neighbors wish animal control had done a better job and that the task had not fallen to the neighbor. Next time, animal control will be more effective. Next time animal control won’t allow the task to be given to the neighbor because the neighbor isn’t really concerned about the neighborhood.

[saganista]

Shifts in sovereignty occur slowly, and debate over that should not be expected to go very much differently from the same debate during the 18th century over prospects of abandoning degrees of state sovereignty to a newly formed federal government. Indeed, we still refer to ourselves as a union of sovereign states, even though the concept is hardly the same one that it was at the start. But the handwriting is on the wall here. The world is becoming smaller in the sense of being more interconnected and more interdependent all the time. Every day that passes brings a further indication mere national sovereignty is not a high enough level. Disputes over this or that between sovereign nations are and will continue to be an increasingly frequent occurrence. I think we have two choices. We could agree simply to try to beat the crap out of each other every time such a dispute arises, thereby bringing about much costly suffering and destruction, or we could eventually learn the wisdom of forming a higher level of appeal and authority that we can turn to for problem resolution. The UN as currently constituted and operated will not be the answer, but it and other institutions are a start.

The actual UN debate that we see today is between a group that wants to go forward and a group that wants to go backward. The resolution of that debate will come from among the thoughts and ideas emerging within the former group. The latter group will simply be ignored and discarded, just as was the case in our national past.

[525600minutes]

I support the UN because it creates an open dialouge between nations on foreign policy and hopefully instills the notion that no nation is an island - there is cause and effect for every action, and it is international in scale. People also don't realize that the UN is important in fostering international trade.

Let's take a look at the situation in Iraq. Seeing now, in retrospect, that the decision to go to war was perhaps a mistake, if not rushed and hastly planned, I wish we had taken some more time and tried to work through the United Nations. However we were too busy pounding their own chests and decrying the French (the French!) to hear the objections of other states at the time. We never really gave the United Nations method a chance, and I consider that a mistake.