Buckdog

I wish he did. If there was only 1 thing I would do as PM it'd be to get Canada out from this truly evil organization

Okay there 'Righty' let's get you on the record. Exacty what is 'truly evil ' about the United Nations. Enlighten us ...please.

Pull us out of the UN? Does Ezra Levant suggest Canada have the same status as the Vatican? Even Switzerland is now part of the global body.

The extreme Right in this county has it in their minds that the United Nations is very bad. I am engaging with mcguire on this thread to lay out what the Right believes. The link to Ezra's argument is on the original post.

Pull us out now,A.S.A.P.Scrap the whole thing. Then start up an organization,that has some balls,with out tyranical nations onboard. The United Nations as it is now is an impotent, useless wishful thinking fairy tale.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

The U.N is evil because it works to the benefit of evil regimes.

It does this by means of the corrupt 'ideal' of moral neutrality.

By refusing to discriminate between good and evil, freedom and slavery, it only benefits the evil by giving them a license to commit any attrocity and escape with a reputation for being decent.

No organization can resolve conflicts if it ignores the difference between right and wrong, and treats an unwarranted aggressor as the moral equal of his innocent victim.

The UN will never be a means to achieving peace.

And because it arms and bestows a moral sanction on vicious regimes, it is an accessory to their incalculable atrocities and murders.

And that is why Canada should get out of the organization so that it is no longer an accesory and enabler of evil.

That argument is what is known as an 'out of context absolute' and it is a logical fallacy.

If the moral absolute is 'thou shalt not bomb infants and toddlers' or if we simplify your example further to 'thou shalt not kill' irregardless of any and all circumstances what have we accomplished?

We have surrendered our own lives to the first thug who comes along that does not share the same code. There have always been such thugs and there always will be.

The first and most important question that we as human being have to answer is do we want to live, or not? Is living a good thing? If the answer to this is yes then that is what your moral code needs to be based on and built around.

I want to live, I enjoy life and want to enjoy it as long as possible. That is my most fundamental right as a human being. No one has the right to take that away. Even if they are holding a child or toddler in their arms I have the right to self defense.

A moral code that is a suicide pact is not a 'moral' code.

You said, "Even if they are holding a child or toddler in their arms I have the right to self defense."

No I am talking about the infants and toddlers that get killed when your strategic plan for Iran to disarm was to establish escalated boming until they surrender or you turn it into a 'parking lot'.

That is what you said. See I am talking about the children that would get killed in their bed, in their home, in their country when your side bombs them into oblivion.

Just so I understand, that is what you call 'self defense'???

The principle is the same whether we are talking about an individual madman holding a child or a country run by madmen filled with innocent children.

Unfortunately we are stuck between a bad choice and a worse one. One can look at it this way, the choice is between their children and ours.

And the question I think you are asking or possibly evading is who is ultimately responsible or morally culpable after my side turns Iran into a parking lot.

The answer comes from another question, what is the ultimate or primary cause of the bombing? Is it me pushing the button as many would allege? No, it is not. It comes from why I would push the button or pull the trigger, which I have made clear.

For me to live my life requires nothing from anyone else other than to be left alone to pursue my own interests, a hands off approach if you will. I am fully willing to reciprocate and in my dealings with people, if we cannot agree on something then we can agree to disagree and go our separate ways.

However many other people do not share this belief, this value, this moral code. They believe that if I do not agree with them then they will force me to agree with them or even kill me so that other people will then feel threatened if they don't agree. This is what we face with Iran and with radical Muslims everywhere.

I have no wish to harm anyone unless and only if they intend to harm me. If they make such intentions clear I will do whatever it takes to defend my life and my children’s. Do not mistake a love of life and the desire not to initiate the use of force on others with extreme absolute (mindless) pacifism.

So let me answer the question, who would be responsible and what is the primary cause. The leaders of Iran are responsible and the primary cause is the radical Islamic philosophy (which in stark contrast to mine is a very hands on approach) that they are implementing and trying to spread worldwide. In the same way that the Nazi’s were ultimately the cause of the firebombing of their cities and the Japanese government of the time was responsible for the two nuclear bombs dropped on that country during World War II.

It is not God, or the Devil, or some unfathomable hatred for Iranian children that would cause me to push the button but the love of my life and the realization that it is my life that it belongs to no one else, and that it is my right as a human being to live that life on no one else’s terms but my own.

To simplify your long answer - what I read is this: 'If you were afraid for your life you would kill them'?

"Them" being who exactly?

By the way, I thought you didn't like 'simple' answers to complicated problems.

You have certainly criticized enough of them.

... right whingers can dish it out, but they cannot take it.

Not part of the U.N. the Conservative government could pursue "made in Canada" solutions to conflicts in the middle east just as it plans to find "made in Canada" solutions to global warming.

If you're on the left, you should despise the UN even more so than you do from the right. The UN gives nations Veto Power, such as the United States, China, and Russia, thereby causing the entire thing to be unproductive and a load of crap.A real UN would not have any sort of system.

The right dislike it because yes, these retardedly evil countries are given a sort of legitamacy in the face of idiotic citizens. This arguement is not only based on the right.

In essence, nations shouldn't be allowed to use this body as a system of providing aid to their citizens, as a system of putting forward their message to the world, and as a means of 'going to the UN' to play politics at home.

In order to be a member of the UN, you should have to cling to a certian level of ideals, and be like minded. Otherwise, it's just like a second grade classroom without a teacher where everybody sits in their seats but still screams, throw's paper balls, and pulls each other's hair when they think they can get away with it.