The UN's replacement: The Alliance of Liberty

Brain Terminal ^ | 2/10/2003 | Evan Coyne Maloney

[libber-tarian]

Now the WEASELS are trying to kill NATO also!

[xzins]

Freedom is not given to us by the sacrifice of our ancestors.

We are "endowed by our CREATOR with certain unalienable RIGHTS." Liberty (freedom) is one of those rights given me by the CREATOR.

[talleyman]

Bump

[Centurion2000]

American Commonwealth of Nations sounds pretty kewl.

[Search4Truth]

I like it. Imagine what could be accomplished? Would we call it the "ACL"?

[Search4Truth]

Sorry, ACN.

[thinktwice]

The UN is a marxist/dictator protection society -- the time has come to replace it with those nations willing to form an Alliance in Freedom, with all such nations having a Bill of Rights substantially matching that of the United States of America.

[AFCdt]

Not every democracy is strictly monotheistic, and many believe in things which might be considered mutually exclusive.

I honestly don't care what religion you are, as long as you as a person, and consequently a collection of people as a nation, believe in the dignity of human life and freedom.

It is moral ambivalence which has ruined the UN, yet creating a "Judeo-Christian only club" is not the answer. Democracy and liberty should be but the only prerequisites.

[smith288]

Saddam would argue, of course, that he is elected, therefore a free country. *sigh*

France would demand their entry into the Alliance.

France of course would have to be admitted into the union based on its history of fighting for freedom. Which, im afraid to report, is not good.

[xzins]

"Ancestor worship" is also religious.

As soon as you appeal to ancestors, some anti-gun professor will pull historical events out of context and tell people that "your ancestors REALLY represented something other than what you think."

When I appeal to the CREATOR for my rights, my opinion of Him is just as valid as anyone else's. (And there's no higher appeal.)

[smith288]

Ancestor worship? Is the Constitution a "living document" or not? If it isnt, then is that Ancestor worship?

[xzins]

I don't understand your point. Could you rephrase? (seriously)

[smith288]

Your post indicates that we shouldnt "worship" our ancestors and went on to say anti-gun nuts distorting what our founding fathers said to make ends.

If we didnt rely on our ancestors acomplishment (like arming its citizens), then what are we to use as a guideline to tell anyone else how to run a functional system of International Alliance or how to accept them as part of it based on their history combined with their current attitude?

Or am i just not even in the same ballpark as you?

[KarlInOhio]

Unless you're a fat, drunk adulterer

Er, ah, did somebody call?

[xzins]

I don't mind using history to determine what the founders meant. If that's all you're saying, then we don't disagree on this.

[Orangedog]

We've all heard the New World Order, tin-foil type rantings from various groups and assorted individuals. Many of those arguments are pretty far-fetched, to say the least...especially when you take a look at the list of possible suspects that could be the "NWO" that is preparing to establish itself. Let's take a look at them, in no particular order:

The European Union (EU)- Historically, these neighboring nations have never been able to play nicely with each other. And since history has a nasty habit of repeating itself, they are not likely to be able to glue themselves together into anything that could possibly turn into the One-World boogyman, unified currency or not.

Warsaw Pact: As Dr McCoy from Star Trek would say "It's worse than that, he's dead, Jim!" This club turned to dust when the Soviet Union collapsed. Cross them off the list, too.

The United Nations: This, until the past few months, was the most likely candidate. Lots of countries are part of it and most of them lean socialist/marxist. The problem with the UN possibly becoming a NWO is that it, as a whole is, well...incompetent. Face it, this organization if too lethargic, self-important and unable to elect anyone even remotely threatening as it's leader. Kofi Annan...please! The average Brownie-Scout troup has stronger leadership. And aside from just being run by half-wits, it's structure doesn't lend itself to swift (or competent) decision making. The debacle over Iraq will be it's downfall.

Doesn't leave many other candidates, does it? There very well could be a New World Order someday, but the UN isn't going to be it. My speculation is that if one is to come (a BIG if), it will be built from the gutted remains of the UN. Nature abhors a vaccuum, and when the UN collapses, there will be a big space to fill. Let's be careful what we fill it with.

[smith288]

Well then OK! :D

[RonF]

Our right to freedom is granted by God. Our actual attainment and retention of it is owed to the actions of our ancestors.

[libber-tarian]

Freedom is not given to us by the sacrifice of our ancestors.

We are "endowed by our CREATOR with certain unalienable RIGHTS." Liberty (freedom) is one of those rights given me by the CREATOR.

Huh? Freedom was NOT given to us by our ancestors? Who the hell fought and died to secure our freedom for us? Although humans may be "endowed" with certain rights by our creator, our creator is rather uneven in allowing humans to take advantage of that endowment.

or are you arguing that the creator favors humans living in America to those living in, say, North Korea or Cuba?

The only difference between NK/Cuba and USA is that in the case of the latter, we were rather lucky to be born in a place where our ancestors fought and died to secure that freedom. People in NK/Cuba weren't so lucky with the location of their birth...

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

The goals the u.n. are trying to achieve are not only unrealistic but unattainable.This is the most foolish bunch of people i've ever seen.They think we are all going to wind up sitting in flowered fields without a care in the world.NUTCASES,THE LOT OF EM!