[quote]theBeth wrote:
[quote]Bauber wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bauber wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Why are some so vehemently opposed to a multilateral organization that seeks to promote international cooperation? As humanity moves into an increasingly interdependent and complex era,it is becoming clear that traditional national security predicated upon “security against” must necessarily evolve into common security, which strives to achieve “security with.”
A forum for international diplomacy to mitigate conflict among member states is a necessary step towards cooperation. What are your thoughts concerning the UN? For those of you who are opposed to the UN, how do you feel towards other international regimes, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons? Discuss.[/quote]
Because no group of humans in the history of the world have been able to benevolently cooperate even under the guise of international diplomacy or peace. Where humans are involved, you can guarantee there is going to be corruption, uncooperative actions, and clusterfucks. People do what is in their best interest for them and their own.
[/quote]
It’s hard enough to get the fifty niffty United States to function as one. [/quote]
Contingent cooperation and eventual long-term trust sufficient to transcend the security paradox does not require political integration. France and Germany are very much still nation-states. [/quote]
So we are talking just cooperating at the level to where we are not invading each other and constantly killing each other? I think we have split off into two different tracks.
Cooperating to merely get along and stay out of war is far from benevolent good for the entire human race. It still boils down to selfishness and watching out for your own best interests. If those interests were to change, you can bet your ass here comes war or at the very least cooperation would cease.[/quote]
Hi! [/quote]
Oh HI! Where have you been? =P