Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Obama and the Hopium Trade Goes International

Seriously, this is the man besting Obama.
Ideals are important. Some people like to discard them because ideals are largely unrealistic, but the notion of a Utopian society serves a purpose none-the-less. We must have a standard by which we measure what humanity has achieved in the way of improving the human condition. Striving towards a just society without a clear standard of what constitutes the best of all worlds would be like attempting to measure a child's growth in height without knowing how tall the child was when he was first able to stand.

Some people use ideals to come as close as possible to realizing it, while others simply delude themselves and ignore reality. I've said this before: most people cannot emotionally handle the fact that this world is an incredibly shitty place. So in order to reduce their own personal distress about the sad state of humanity, they ignore reality and instead focus on the symptoms rather than the causes.

Enter President Obama and the Hopium Trade. The president addressed the United Nations General Assembly today, and he talked about how international law must be enforced or else it will become a joke. News flash, Mr. President: It's already a joke. In his address, Obama skirts 3 big problems that undermine international law.

Thing 1: Technically, international law only applies to nations who agree to the laws themselves.

America has used this against the UN in the past, upholding certain ideas of international law while categorically rejecting others. We were not actually supposed to invade Iraq in 2003 because the UNSC told us we couldn't. Look how well that turned out. Just as well, North Korea continues to thwart international law banning them from pursuing nuclear weapons. Assad has shown that he clearly could not give a single shit, let alone two shits, about the international ban on the use of chemical weapons.

Of course, the offending nation always defends itself with the notion of sovereignty, regardless of how barbaric their actions may be. And so long as nations are allowed to use sovereignty to justify gross violations of human rights, international law will continue to be meaningless.

Thing 2: International law is arbitrarily enforced.

This sort of goes hand-in-hand with Thing 1. The world did not step in to stop Apartheid, yet the US was chomping at the bit to put an end to Saddam Hussein's reign of terror. Obama ignored congressional disapproval of getting involved in Libya and helped topple Gadhaffi, but no one will touch North Korea with a 100 foot pole. Sure, Gadhaffi was both brutal and insane, but the situation in North Korea is truly hellish. If you don't believe that, then just google search North Korea's idea of "Three Generations of Punishment."

Until international law is applied evenly in every case of severe human rights violations, it will contiue to be a joke.

Thing 3: The UN Security Council is nothing but an international stage for major world leaders to undermine each other.

Mr. President: if you want international law to mean something, then why don't you bring up the fact that the UNSC veto essentially ruins everything? Yes, there needs to be a voice of reason, but when that "voice of reason," is the likes of China and Vladimir Putin, the process needs to be examined. Essentially, the members of the UNSC have the power to stop the UN from doing anything, at any time, for any reason, regardless of the magnitude of the violation.

Putin doesn't care about things like "human rights." Hell, one can argue that he doesn't even truly care about Russia. All he cares about is continuing his reign as the unofficial king of Russia, and as of late he will do anything to undermine the US.

So if the president truly wishes for the UN to improve, then he needs to call a spade a spade, and he needs to drop the delusion that international law can function in its current form. His address was just more talk of "hope and change," and we all know how far those promises go.

15 comments:

Silverfiddle said...

Nice summary, and I agree.

I also want to keep things just as you've described them. Sovereignty should trump all. Countries, like people, do crappy things that others may not like. Tough.

If some country is doing something really crappy, and other countries decide they need to stop it, then they should openly declare that they are going to forcibly breach the sovereignty of country X because of Y.

More time than not, the UN is just a platform for the Lilliputions to tied down Gulliver, or for tinhorn dictators, child molesters, torturers and serial human rights abusers to lecture civilized countries.

Jersey McJones said...

I can't believe you bought into this anti-Obama silliness on this, Jack. We need to get the chemical weapons out of there, and we need to stay out of the civil war. Obama is possibly accomplishing both those things. No one is besting anyone. This is pure bullshit.

JMJ

Jack Camwell said...

Did you even read what I wrote? I wrote that article for Yahoo news like, maybe a couple of hours after the Obama speech. It's my thoughts, uninfluenced by what anyone else thinks.

This isn't anti-Obama. My quibble is with the message, not the man. My problem is with the real issues behind the impotency of the UN are not being addressed, not with Obama himself.

Jersey McJones said...

"The message" my ass, Jack. That's Kissinger-speak, the kind of nonsense that led America into all sorts of stupid international quagmires.

JMJ

Anonymous said...

Jersey,

Enough with the Zealotry.

I noticed you still haven't answered my question from a few posts ago, about what could this man do to earn your ire.

Trust me when I say this: If Mutt Rimjob was the puppet master, I would be just as incensed. If my longshot Ron Paul was the puppet master and he did this, I would be triple pissed.

"we need to get out of iraq and afghanistan" then it must have been under his breath Obama then said "and into the frying pan with some other countries"

Explain this to me: why is Syria different than say... Darfur? Pyongyang? Sudan? Liberia?

Make a case of why when Syria kills it's own people, it's a big hullabaloo and when Liberia has a civil war it's ok, no need to worry.

Furthermore, when Sodamn Insane gassed his own people, DEMS WERE VEHEMENTLY AGAINST TAKING ACTION, claiming it was just warmongering by Bush Sr.

When your Pope Barack Obama wants to go after Syria for the exact same fucking shit, it's not warmongering?

Which is it?!?

Furthermore, why should we listen to Obama when he has blown so much smoke up the gown of lady liberty, the bitch is getting a contact buzz?

Explain to me in ideas and thoughts, not in character attacks.

Calling Jackie out for "anti-obama sillyness" does nothing to further your argument, and just cements you further into the Cult of the Anointed.

Jersey McJones said...

Your questions are irrelevant. There are chemical weapons in a dangerous spot that need to be removed. The President it trying his best to accomplish that. That's it. All the rest is bullshit.

JMJ

Jack Camwell said...

Irrelevant?

You should go tell those North Koreans that escaped from the prison camps that the question "why aren't we stopping the human rights violations in North Korea," is irrelevant.

Go up to that woman who watched in horror while her newborn was drowned in a bowl by the camp guards, and tell her "we need to get the chemical weapons out of Syria, but stopping attrocities like what happened to you in North Korea is not important right now."

You're so completely full of shit, Jersey. You won't answer any questions we pose to you, because the answers force you to either A) admit you're wrong or B) make you look like a complete hypocrite.

Jersey McJones said...

Wisdom is knowing when you can't do something, Jack. We can't get too involved in Syria.

JMJ


Jack Camwell said...

So first you say "There are chemical weapons in a dangerous spot that need to be removed. The President it trying his best to accomplish that."

Then you say "We can't get too involved in Syria."

. . .

W
T
F

Jersey McJones said...

It's very simple. Evidence showed chemical weapons were being used by the Assad regime in the civil war in Syria. Obama threatened to destroy Syria's capacity to use those weapons. John Kerry innocuously answers a reporter's question about a way out of using force in Syria by saying that if Assad were to fess up to the weapons and be rid of them, then we wouldn't have to use force. Then he said he didn't think Assad would do that. Assad then said he'd do just that, apparently at the behest of the Russians, who have longstanding interests involved here, and in Iran, which is tied up in all this too.

All this other stuff is bullshit.

JMJ

Anonymous said...

From what I gather, you are subscribing to a line of thought that somehow meddling in the political schemes of middle eastern countries is a good thing.

Tell me again how that worked out in 1953? Oh we got some oil out of the deal, but earned the antipathy of an entire region.

I like the dodging of the apples to apples comparison of the first gulf war as well, expertly ignored once again good sir.

Also, what makes Syria different from NK, who has long had the capability to manufacture chemical weapons and is for sure radiological and just around the corner from nuclear? They also murder/torture their own citizens, or is that just bullshit too.

It seems your argument style revolves around dismissing the opposing viewpoint as bullshit crazy talk.

My vote is to let someone else be the heavy for a while.

Canada, UK, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Australia, or Russia themselves are all individually capable of fucking over Syria with minimum effort.

Israel is supposed to be the anchor of this region of the world, why the fuck can't they deal with it.

Jack Camwell said...

So when Saddam Hussein refused to let in UN inspectors, GWB was justified in using American force to ensure that Saddam no longer had chemical weapons. Right?

So again, what about the North Koreans? They have nukes, and they are being told by the UN that they're not allowed.

Why don't we use force on them?

Anonymous said...

Why all this sudden fascination with Russian homoerotica?

Gaylord Hauser

Jersey McJones said...

We didn't use force in Syria, Jack, and we never threatened to invade. That's the whole point. I'd call that a victory for the civilized world.

JMJ

Anonymous said...

If that is your "whole point" then you like to count your chickens before they hatch. Thinking this business in Syria is "a victory" already.


Who am I kidding, Obama was involved... I am amazed
the offending Syrians didn't explode into a billion skittles for defying the will of the divine emperor of the cosmos.