Posted on 05/23/2024 6:57:46 AM PDT by MtnClimber
One of the great qualities of the West is its belief in the directionality of history. Many ancient cultures believed that history was circular: Native American cultures often believed that reality itself was circular; Hinduism thinks similarly. The Judeo-Christian West thought differently: that God exists outside of time, but that He guides mankind forward, step by stumbling step, toward an eschatological culmination.
This means that the West has thought, more than any other culture, about progress. It also means that the West tends to mistake movement in time for progress, and waystations in history as endpoints. Thus, World War I was labeled “the war to end all wars” … until World War II. In the aftermath of the Cold War, Francis Fukuyama suggested the possibility of an “end of history” … until history reasserted itself along the lines of Samuel Huntington’s clash of civilizations.
The West also tends to mistake institutional forms for underlying realities. Because the West, particularly in the aftermath of the Enlightenment, has thought so much about the varieties of human institutions and their purposes, we tend to believe too much in the power of human action. This means that we often reverse cause and effect: We tend to believe, for example, that democracy precedes rights, as opposed to rights preceding democracy. We also tend to believe that we are the creators of our own rights and responsibilities; we are, in essence, legal positivists who believe that law is created by us rather than preexisting us. For example, Woodrow Wilson posited after World War I that we ought to create a League of Nations, since “There is only one power to put behind the liberation of mankind, and that is the power of mankind.” As it turns out, that was a lot of rot.
(Excerpt) Read more at amac.us ...
The UN seems to have it's view of good and evil inverted from reality.
The eschatological culmination is determined by God and not man.
The believer is tasked to spread the gospel, not make the world a better place from which to enter Hell.
Get America out of the UN, and the UN out of America!!!
Paris would be the perfect place to put the UN.
Properly understood, there is international law in the sense of the customs and treaties that govern conduct among nations. The UN though is a malignant entity that should be radically reformed or abolished entirely.
It’s rather ironic Ben Shapiro would be making these points after opposing an American First President for long as he did and after supporting the proxy war in Ukraine.
I highly doubt Benji Shapiro would be making this argument if we were back in 1945.
The PEOPLE have no say in who is controlling them, then they are slaves. The UN and the ICC, even the Nuremburg trials were all BS. The best protection for people, is a strong nation. Built on the precepts that ALL are equal. That we have inalienable Rights from God. Government is instituted to protect our Rights, and to do things that individuals cannot. Anything else must be a dictatorship.
The Nuremburg trials set the pattern of ultra national bodies to rule on life or death. The same with the Geneva war conventions. In fact there are no war crimes. War itself consists of murder and mayhem. The Germans had camps for people they considered lower class or dissidents, they disposed of some. The Russians came West and found the camps, and also killed some. I am not disputing the numbers, just one is a crime punishable by death. Yet the Brits firebombed civilians, turning their attention to revenge as the US fought to Berlin.
The problem is, the winner is the Judge, and seldom looks inward.
I agree. But in the world order it is might that makes right...unfortunately. And we are voluntarily giving up our position of strength as if that was virtuous.
The UN should be in the most important place in the Solar System...
The Sun.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-106SPRT66922/html/CPRT-106SPRT66922.htm
Treaties are a serious legal undertaking both in international and domestic law. Internationally, once in force, treaties are binding on the parties and become part of international law. Domestically, treaties to which the United States is a party are equivalent in status to Federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls ``the supreme Law of the Land.''
However, the word treaty does not have the same meaning in the United States and in international law. Under international law, a ``treaty'' is any legally binding agreement between nations. In the United States, the word treaty is reserved for an agreement that is made ``by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate'' (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution). International agreements not submitted to the Senate are known as ``executive agreements'' in the United States, but they are considered treaties and therefore binding under international law.
For various reasons, Presidents have increasingly concluded executive agreements. Many agreements are previously authorized or specifically approved by legislation, and such ``congressional-executive'' or statutory agreements have been treated almost interchangeably with treaties in several important court cases. Others, often referred to as ``sole executive agreements,'' are made pursuant to inherent powers claimed by the President under Article II of the Constitution.
Neither the Senate nor the Congress as a whole is involved in concluding sole executive agreements, and their status in domestic law is not fully resolved.
There is much more at that government link. If you have any questions or comments I suggest contacting your politician.
The US is as much to blame as others for not abiding by a “rules based international order”.
Where is Jessie Helms now when we need him most?
He was the last great democrat, right? Yeah, the Country could learn a lot from him.
You forgot the sarcasm tag on that post celebrating Jesse Helms.
What sarcasm?
Celebrating Helms had to be a joke, plus I think you listed him as a Dem?
I never knew a lot about Jesse Helms, but my foray into Wikipedia about him shows a lot to like.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.