Wow, this thread has relatively been pretty informative and respectful (note I said relatively). Good discussion.
I'm going to go ahead and say: no, absence of war doesn't necessarily benefit both sides in any balanced way, even if it benefits both sides. For example, it benefits the US much more than anyone else. It benefits the side which is in the wrong. This framework allows a powerful state to not worry about getting weakened. If the US had to go to war everytime it wanted to impose power, for example, then it would become weaker compared to other powerful states. Also, it has not reduced American propensity for war, so I'm not sure how effective this has been in preventing war as you state. So for example let's say Egypt invades Sudan against UN wishes and acquires most of its resources. Egypt subsequently declares that it does not want war and calls on Sudan to come to the negotiating table. Are both sides benefitting from this non-war stance given Egypt is already in posession of the resources in question and can simply ignore/divert inquiries until Sudan resorts to war and then Egypt can claim it's acting in self-defense? I think quite obviously, war benefits Sudan more than doing nothing because it can weaken Egypt for another country to attack/infiltrate Egypt. This is how the UN is set up, this is what the cold war was about: powerful countries agreeing to mind their own business in exploiting weak countries. Specifically since there is no clear/independent mechanism for a country losing/gaining permanent membership, over time permanent members may dominate other permanenet members, non-permanent members may be driven to war, permanent members may have negligible influence. Anyways, so what you're saying is that joining the UN is an additional advantage for powerful countries over weaker countries. So why do the weaker countries join or stay then? Why does Palestine want to join so bad? You see again you call them nobodies, but seem to be ignoring that the legitimacy of the UN comes from its members respecting their pledges. You can't part-take in deligitimzing the UN (especially as a permanent member) and then cite the lack of legitimacy in the organization as the reason why you won't comply. If it's legitimacy you want from the UN, then the US (and whoever else is doing the same) should start abiding by the terms they agreed to. The reality is that the UN can't kick out the US. That's why the US can say F off. It's not just any country that can say F off, which makes the UN a tool of authority over weaker countries. Doesn't benefit both sides. Just brings them under authority. I know all countries are not equal or created equal, that's why I don't believe in the concept of countries. That's besides the point. My perception and your perception of the UN/US here is irrelevant. The point here is: The US has voluntarily agreed to a set of conditions. It is at least irrational and illogical that they would not comply with those conditions. It is a declaration of war IF the US has agreed to those conditions with no intention of complying with them for the singular purpose of abusing the powers which come with accepting those conditions. Serious question, would love to hear your answer: given your views, how on earth do you call anyone a terrorist? Surely with what you believe, you have no grounds to claim that terrorist organizations are particularly terroristic? It seems you consider terrorism a valid means of accomplishing arbitrary interests. My understanding of your view is that: countries should do whatever they want regardless even of obligations they voluntarily accept. In addition you don't believe in human rights outside your borders, and sometimes not within your borders. Finally you don't think that sovereign decisions should be in the hands of a majority. Given that becoming a country is also a power that lies in the hands of the powerful, I can't imagine how you deligitimize terrorism? It seems to me that the seizure of power by any means is completely legitimate in your view? I ask out of curiosity, not making any accusations.
I never stated that the beneficial was balanced, but I would note that you are in fact correct on your third sentence, which is basically my point - Iraq, for example, was harmed far more by the Iraqi war than the US, but the US was harmed as well. The UN serves as a mean of expanding diplomacy to limit such things. Of course, sometimes diplomacy will break down, but it has generally reduced the propensity for war on a global scale and eased communication between states, so for that reason alone, I definitely oppose the common conservative idea of withdrawing from the UN. Except when did I say I want legitimacy from the UN? I don't want legitimacy for the UN, because then people will start actually thinking that te UN should actually get power or something like that, and I will never accept that. The UN is useful in the highly limited capacity which I described for it and in those veins, the UN doesn't need legitimacy to be a big fancy diplomatic club. As for why the weaker states want to join, it's to gain respect from the other bigger countries. The UN does limit the dominance from the big countries to some extent, and so the little countries join for that reason out of self-protection. Similarly, the big countries don't want to constantly exert themselves to show their authority over the little countries, which is why they join. They possess the right to do it, which is why the UN is still around and the League failed, but they don't need to do it nearly as often. To me, there's not a huge difference between a terrorist and a violent criminal like say, the Mexican drug cartels. Both operate outside the state monopoly on violence and thus must be curtailed. The only real difference is that terrorist organizations generally have some political end to their goals, while obviously the cartels just want money. After all, what does it matter what I call them? Perhaps Al Qaeda aren't terrorists. It doesn't follow that just because they aren't terrorists that the US can't destroy them in retaliation for 9/11. States, from my perspective, can do pretty much whatever they want, but they have to be aware of the consequences, such as how their decisions might affect regional security and the national interests of other states. The US could tomorrow go on a rampage and literally try to conquer the entire Middle East or Europe tomorrow, and I would be fine from that from a legal perspective, though I would obviously not be fine with that idea from other perspective.
Here I think we've reached an impasse. The way you see things is precisely how I see the end of the human race in the distant future. I think humans are wired quite naturally to react to positive pressure positively and negative pressure negatively, and the framework you describe is one of constant negative pressure being rewarded. I see it ending very poorly. The UN is an important tool. I know you disagree with this, but you must see how absurd it is to the international community that a country with UN veto rights is uncomfortable with the UN. To a Palestinian for example, it is among the most outrageous things they have ever heard. Personally I think the UN and NATO and the World Bank and the IMF should all be important tools with sufficient independence and sufficient global representation. You know I live a life and in a country where the current framework is humongously beneficial to me. There are some core things I don't have, but I have personally met Americans who have renounced their citizenship for tax reasons. I am sure, they would rather be me than me being them. The benefits my kids would get are beyond 99% of Americans wildest dreams. I have much to lose standard of living-wise from opposing the current global framework. My main disagreement with your view is that: that type of state sacrifices human life for power. Sacrificing human lives very literally achieves power and if we give states that right unsupervised, they will sacrifice humans until they are powerful enough to not need the people they represent. I think we must move towards protecting human life, and such a system does the opposite. It makes human life less valuable than state longevity and corporate profitability. We are not all the same IMO and unleashing the tools for legalizing human murder through layers of made-up instruments for those more "murder-inclined" is a bad idea. IMO we have to limit these powers tremendously, not merely by written law, but by actual reduction in capabilities. Probably I would agree with you more if I thought that the mechanism for the population of the state controlling its elected officials was accurate, efficient and fair to them. Not so long ago, I thought that was the case in many Western countries, where the best of such mechanisms are found. While I still believe they are the best, I think they are still grossly inadequate to serve as the apparatus of an internationally lawless state. One thing I agree with you is that I don't believe in a stance of black/white on terrorism. Seems arbitrary at best to call one side a terrorist and another terrorist not. That is unless we centralize the definition and application of terrorism to an internationally representative centralized body. As you said, I may disagree with you to the core on many issues, but absolutely no hard feelings. If anything, I learn plenty and your views make me re-examine my own.
First we need to be clear that the OSCE is not here to oversee the elections but to observe the elections. That is a very important distinction as the first means that they actually will play an official role and the second means that they are just watching. The OSCE has no force of law in the US but like any other groups is allowed to passively observe. That is all they are doing. Second, consider for a moment if Abbot wasn't the Texas AG but the AG of a state in Venezuala. I strongly suspect you would see many of the posters complaining about this be trumpeting this as a sign that the Chavez government is hiding something. In the end I agree this is political theatre. The OSCE has no say in the US election and AG Abbot knows that. He is just raising this create buzz.
Just wanted to put this in the context of this thread. http://www.voanews.com/content/venezuela-under-pressure-for-election-recount/1642261.html http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/04/20134146504879826.html This appears to be barely reported in Western media from my limited google searching. Not sure how much it's been covered on TV news. The few single-paragraph reports from a few outlets which have explicitly written an article about the White House requesting a recount in Venezuela don't seem to reflect the abhorrent behavior of the White House in this respect, particularly considering the hypersensitivity of Americans to even OBSERVING an election process of their own. Nevermind the irony of the White House giving advice on how Venezuela should conduct an election. Various examples from various places at various times: From past elections:
