If Rorschach is crazy, then so is Superman (and Batman)

[Aldous]

As for Superman, he wasn't born on U.S. soil and he's never been naturalized.

But you see my point. Our government, post September 11, hates the UN like you. Why would they not also have something against Superman, a resident alien?

I see your point, but you are contradicting yourself. Being "naturalized" is nothing more than the government saying you now have citizenship. If you dislike your government and don't trust it, talking about the merits of Superman being "naturalized" is absurd.

The U.N. has at least kept democracies from fighting each other.

Noted, but I think that is nonsense. If you can point to a clear-cut example, I'm willing to change my opinion.

[Great Rao]

P.S. Before it comes up, as for Superman's "world citizenship" declared by the UN, it could be rejected by even one veto in the security council. And that depends whether it was a binding resolution in the first place.

And we all know who the most frequent user of the "veto" power is...

[Gangbuster]

As for Superman, he wasn't born on U.S. soil and he's never been naturalized.

But you see my point. Our government, post September 11, hates the UN like you. Why would they not also have something against Superman, a resident alien?

I see your point, but you are contradicting yourself. Being "naturalized" is nothing more than the government saying you now have citizenship. If you dislike your government and don't trust it, talking about the merits of Superman being "naturalized" is absurd.

I'm not seeing your point. If the government said that Superman is a citizen he is...but they didn't so he isn't. The merits of the process do not matter, only the process itself. Many people are citizens who distrust their government.

The U.N. has at least kept democracies from fighting each other.

Noted, but I think that is nonsense. If you can point to a clear-cut example, I'm willing to change my opinion.

The primary goal of the U.N., as founded in 1945, is to prevent wars by making countries at least go through other nonviolent processes first: talks, sanctions, embargoes, etc. The goals of its founders were frustrated during the Cold War because the US and Soviet Union and their allies (The First and Second World) took absolutist positions on issues and supported dictators who supported them. It is a documented fact that democracies do not fight each other, but during most of the Cold War the U.S. was not interested in promoting democracy...only non-communism.

Since the Cold War, however, U.N. peacekeeping efforts have intensified. According to the Human Security Report 2005, there has been:

- A 40% drop in violent conflict.

- An 80% drop in the most deadly conflicts.

- An 80% drop in genocide and politicide.

These corrolate with increased U.N. activities. That is not to say that the U.N. hasn't embarassed itself, or that the structure of the Security Council isn't outdated. But the U.N. has made a difference. In addition, the U.N.'s World Food Programme feeds 100 million people a year.

[Aldous]

As for Superman, he wasn't born on U.S. soil and he's never been naturalized.

But you see my point. Our government, post September 11, hates the UN like you. Why would they not also have something against Superman, a resident alien?

I see your point, but you are contradicting yourself. Being "naturalized" is nothing more than the government saying you now have citizenship. If you dislike your government and don't trust it, talking about the merits of Superman being "naturalized" is absurd.

I'm not seeing your point. If the government said that Superman is a citizen he is...but they didn't so he isn't. The merits of the process do not matter, only the process itself. Many people are citizens who distrust their government.

The U.N. has at least kept democracies from fighting each other.

Noted, but I think that is nonsense. If you can point to a clear-cut example, I'm willing to change my opinion.

The primary goal of the U.N., as founded in 1945, is to prevent wars by making countries at least go through other nonviolent processes first: talks, sanctions, embargoes, etc. The goals of its founders were frustrated during the Cold War because the US and Soviet Union and their allies (The First and Second World) took absolutist positions on issues and supported dictators who supported them. It is a documented fact that democracies do not fight each other, but during most of the Cold War the U.S. was not interested in promoting democracy...only non-communism.

Since the Cold War, however, U.N. peacekeeping efforts have intensified. According to the Human Security Report 2005, there has been:

- A 40% drop in violent conflict.

- An 80% drop in the most deadly conflicts.

- An 80% drop in genocide and politicide.

These corrolate with increased U.N. activities. That is not to say that the U.N. hasn't embarassed itself, or that the structure of the Security Council isn't outdated. But the U.N. has made a difference. In addition, the U.N.'s World Food Programme feeds 100 million people a year.

Put it this way. If you don't think your government is legitimate, how can they legitimise someone in your eyes? It's nonsense. If they tell you "this person is acceptable" and "this person is unacceptable", why would you believe them, and what difference would it make? Suppose the government agreed with your opinion, that Superman is an illegal alien, and they ordered him by authority of the law to leave the United States and not come back -- should he go? If you think he should stay regardless, then you don't believe in the very "naturalization" process you're talking about. If you think he should go, you do believe your government is legitimate.

Me, I think it's all hogwash, this business of Superman being an "illegal alien" and (shudder) an "immigrant". RUBBISH! 

Gangbuster, I know you are sincere about the U.N. and the supposed good they are doing, but I still don't have my example, and statistics compiled by academics are yet another example of what I'm talking about. The average P.T.A. meeting has done more for the world than an average week at the U.N. We will just have to disagree. As I said, if you give me one real example, a real "case", I may change my opinion.

[TELLE]

The average P.T.A. meeting has done more for the world than an average week at the U.N.

Ha ha --example please?

States cannot act morally.  But then again, most of us can't either, in the "purest" sense.

[Gangbuster]

Gangbuster, I know you are sincere about the U.N. and the supposed good they are doing, but I still don't have my example, and statistics compiled by academics are yet another example of what I'm talking about. The average P.T.A. meeting has done more for the world than an average week at the U.N. We will just have to disagree. As I said, if you give me one real example, a real "case", I may change my opinion.

I guess so... you've already made up your mind. One of my best friends was a U.N. peacekeeper in Bosnia in the early 2000s, and he seems to think he made a difference. On the other hand, as a teacher I've been to many parent meetings, and in most cases, they make no difference in student behavior, grades, etc.

While it's true that a school is a government and the U.N. is not, it's a decent analogy. In a school you have teachers and students who really do not care about the welfare of the organization, and sometimes even embarrass it. The parents that we talk to usually do not change their ways...but sometimes they do. The U.N. is no different, just on a larger scale.