WT says:

The one flaw I find in your argument about the UN is similar to the flaw many EU refuseniks find in that body. It represents governments, not citizens, and UN resolutions are never put to any kind of referendum.

I'm not sure what argument you are speaking of. This goes back to ondelette's original argument that, according to the UN Charter, governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed and government authority derives from popular sovereignty. But UN resolutions are not laws; General Assembly resolutions are, like our Democratic Congress, non-binding and Security Council resolutions authorize member states to take certain actions in certain circumstances or call on member states to take certain actions. But these also do not have the force of law and are often ignored. This year marks the 40th year that Israel has been ignoring UNSCR 242.

In my view, this makes it a bit of a stretch to argue that such resolutions should have the force of law in any country. Which is not to say, mind you, that I wouldn't look forward to a true world government founded on the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence, if I thought I'd live long enough to see concrete steps to be taken in that direction.

If I gave the impression that the UN passes laws that must be obeyed in all of its member countries, I apologize. When I said "illegal war", I meant illegal in international law. In general, international law (as one might guess from the name) regulates relations between nations, not individuals. But international law is not created by a world government — it is created by treaties which nations may join or not as they see fit. And on occasion, ratification of a treaty may be the subject of a referendum. What the UN does rather than make laws for the world is to sponsor treaties. Thus the Geneva Conventions, The UN Convention against Torture, The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the International Criminal Court and a myriad others are the law that govern international relations. Frequently these treaties require member states to pass laws appropriate to their own country and circumstances to enforce the treaty locally. Thus there are US laws against war crimes (USC 18.1.118 § 2441 <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html>) and torture (USC 18.1.113C § 2340-2340C <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html>) passed in accordance with treaties, but no one is ever prosecuted under these laws.

The UN, or course, is no such thing, even though it does an admirable job of encouraging governments to behave more decently, and to assist failed states in picking up the debris of their failures, and occasionally preventing violently opposed populations from savaging one another. It's the best we can do at the moment, and I applaud its efforts, but I certainly don't accept that it has the right to govern my actions as a citizen of the United States.

Yes, but I feel much the same way about the United States government in its current instantiation. And I want to go on record as saying that John Bolton did not represent me at the United Nations.

I understand what you are saying. I served my time in the military (like WT, for most of my generation it was considered an obligation of citizenship), but never in combat. I was too young for Korea and too old for Vietnam (well, I could have gone to Nam, but they were still asking for volunteers at that point and one of the first things I learned was never to volunteer for anything). But I was proud of my service and I still have a soft spot and respect for our military. I see the military as a position of trust with respect to the population as a whole. Much like teachers, doctors, lawyers, police, etc. These are positions that must be certified by competent authority and are expected to maintain certain standards. Officers of the armed services are commissioned by the president. But I don't see the invisible line barring criticism of the military or of any individual in the military. Just as with teachers, or doctors, or lawyers, or the police, those who betray the public trust by acting contrary to the standards of the profession deserve and should expect condemnation. One of the standards of the military is not to use the uniform for partisan political purposes. I feel that Gen Petraeus massaged the numbers in his report to back a highly partisan political agenda. If he had presented a complete picture of the situation, even if it was inconclusive, rather than using Enron-style creative accounting to make things look better than they may be, there would be no cause for complaint. Petraeus is expected to do his best for his country, not for any particular party. It is still the United States Army, not the Republican National Committee Army.

By the way, I love your theme song.

Because your gran loved Louis:

MoveOn hit a nerve and that's telling.
— Pedinska

Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice.
— H. L. Mencken

totallyblase, your snark meter needs recalibrating. Either that, or the little light that's supposed to blink when someone goes over the top in putting you on is burned out. Still, I supposed it's difficult to have your audience attuned to rigorous analysis and then suddenly shift to parody on them. It reminds me of the experiment to see whether fish think or not.

(I don't care enough to have responded about whatever it is Jonah Goldberg has to say.)

Jonah Goldberg thinks that National Socialism was socialist. If he follows the same reasoning, he doubtless thinks that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy.