It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


GRUDGE MATCH: GoreGrinder VS Colonel... US Sovereignty

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 23 2003 @ 12:06 AM
DEBATE CHALLENGE: GoreGrinder Vs. Colonel

Based on a history on ATS of continued debate between these two participants, a challenge has emerged.

So, in the interested of civilized debate, we are taking these individuals to the debate forum.

The topic: US National Sovereignty is obsolete and should be coopted by the United Nations. UN Decrees should supercede all US Federal, State, and Local laws.

GoreGrinder will argue the position of affirmative.

Colonel will argue the contrary position.

Colonel has won the toss for opening statement. (Colonel can pass his first post to Goregrinder if he wishes)

The format will be:

1 opening statment from each side.

4 alternating posts from each side. Each post cannot exceed 1,000 words and my not have more than one reference link. Each participant will have 18 hours for thier respective posts.

GoreGrinder has first closing statement (like the opening statement, he can pass to Colonel)

Each side may have 1 follow-up rebuttal post to the other's closing statement, but rebuttals may not exceed 200 words.

Please follow all other rules of ATS Online Debate posting in the Debate Forum.

Colonel, the debate thread is yours.

posted on Jul, 23 2003 @ 10:40 AM
Posted by DragonRider on behalf of Colonel, due to technical difficulties.

*Note* We are attempting to fix the situation, but in the interim, I am posting debate posts for the debate participants. All Debate posts are the original of the participants.

Ok, here is my first volley:

I contend that US. national sovereignty is not obsolete and to have the UN co-opt the United States would be egregious and unfair to the people of the United States and, eventually, to the people of the world.

Simply stated, the prerequisites of a nation-state, which lead to national sovereignty, remain intact for the United States. Those prerequisites are identifiable boundaries, a system of governing, and a means to defend both boundaries and form of government.

Conversely, the UN is a coalition of nation-states who, in theory, work in partnership for the betterment of the world. Specifically, the UN is more of a loose confederation of, in reality, competing interests rather than an autonomous nation. With regards to structure, the UN has no formal boundaries, no formal system of governing outside of political bartering, and no real means to defend either. As such, the UN is not a nation-state but an institution serving at the mercy of its member states.

Therefore, it would be grossly unfair for the United States, an autonomous nation-state, to succumb to the jurisdiction of the UN which functions at the pleasure of other member autonomous nation-states. Furthermore, this loss of US sovereignty would serve as an ill omen for the rest of the nations of the planet in the future.

With regard to UN Decrees, these are on par with federal law and supercede state and local laws as it should be. However, this should go no further for the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Interference with this notion by a UN Decree would serve to undermine United States sovereignty and lead down the ominous slippery slope for the rest of the planet as I mentioned prior.


posted on Jul, 23 2003 @ 12:12 PM
Posted by DragonRider on behalf of GoreGrinder, due to technical difficulties.

The sovereignty of The United States of America, is, in a sad loss to the modern world, no longer existant. If we were sitting on the front porch of a convenience store in the 1950's, my argument would be futile, but the durastic and grievous changes the United States has altered its' image with over the last fifty plus years has no doubt changed the course of this debate.

Ever since the formation of the United Nations, a *US* led institution, the United States has indeed assumed the Big Brother role to the world. Since World War 2 though, the United States has been slipping further and further into a bog of dissention that it has undoubtedly created. First, you must look at Vietnam. While this was in essence a "good deed" on behalf of the United States, this long, costly war did nothing but cost countless American casualties, discredit our own administrations, and show our government's true reasons for war; the selfish gain of power. This war produced no victory, no answers, and weakened our presence in the world playing field.

Jumping forward a little bit in time, you have the cunundrum of the arms building admittadly perpetrated by the US government . While every leading country on earth has no doubt sold weapons to its enemies at one point or another, the US is one of the only ones in modern history to attack the forces of the very armies it helped build.

Until the last year, the United Nations was never in such tension as with the impending war in Iraq. Not even the crisis in Bosnia produced such strain beween countries that were no doubt once friends and strong allies. Instead, the US administration disregarded the begging and pleading of the UN to stay the violence that seemed to undoubtedly loom in front of the United States and Iraq. This is a clear disregard for any requests other countries may have for peace.

In essence, the question goes something like this; do we not live on Earth? Are there not other countries, some who outnumber ours, that should have an equal share on the future of this world? Until the UN is recognized for what it is, a peace-keeping, stabalizing union of the world countries that strive for freedom, the United States will continue to sink in this bog of imaginary authority, sadly repeating the same history of all fallen empires.

posted on Jul, 23 2003 @ 10:30 PM
Posted by DragonRider on behalf of Colonel due to technical difficulties.

At this juncture, I would have to agree with my esteemed adversary, the United Nations is “a peace-keeping, stabilizing union of the world countries.” As such, this institution is ill-suited for the tasks of conducting the business of a nation-state through the usurpation a nation’s sovereignty, in this case, the United States. For clarification, we should analyze the Charter of the United Nations.

In Art. 1, Section 2 , it states that the purpose of the United Nations is “[t]o develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples….” Here, the Charter specifically emphasizes “friendly relations among nations.” Nowhere has the purpose been to usurp the sovereignty of nations for the good will of the world nor for conducting the operations of a nation-state for those are not the functions of the United Nations. Although the article goes on to state as a purpose that it may “take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace,” I contend, as I did in my opening statement, that this comment does not imply in any form usurpation of sovereignty for that would result in a weakened United Nations. A United Nations weakened through abstention of membership of nation-states for fear the same result would be rendered to them, hindering the purpose of creating a coalition to promote “friendly relations among nations.”

As an adjoining principle, the Art. 2, Sec. 1 states “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” Simply stated, the United Nations believes in the sovereignty of nation-states. To violate this principle and singly undertake usurpation of U.S. national sovereignty would fly in the face of Charter mandates and be egregiously unfair to the United States

Indeed, there are strenuous tensions in this “confederation of nations” as my adversary has referenced.
Yet, that is the way of nation-states with competing interests from time immemorial. It would be unjust to single out the United States for appropriation into a United Nations “collective” while others member states continue on with their sovereignty. And for the United States‘ “clear disregard for any requests other countries may have…,“ this is the power of national sovereignty which other countries feel free to utilize at their own discretion. Isn’t it discriminatory and unfair to single out the United States for a power all other countries use at a whim in furthering their own interests?

posted on Jul, 23 2003 @ 11:20 PM
Posted by DragonRider on behalf of GoreGrinder, due to technical difficulties.

Starting off this next response, I would like to thank my adversary for a reference which undoubtedly furthers my argument.

Working my way down through Colonels' response, I would first like to point out the unwisely injected word "usurp". In what way, over the past 58 years that the United Nations has so crucially been instituted, has the United States' power been unfairly stripped by another country? If the motion to go to war in Iraq would have come before the council, it would have been shot down. Not because any power was being stolen, but because a larger portion of the countries seated in the UN disagreed with it, mainly because of a huge lack of evidence. Also, as an interesting side-note, if any power was actually being stripped from the United States, as you have stated, why was the United States STILL allowed to invade Iraq? In essence this points out the fact that the United States is turning toward the path of a rogue nation, and turning away from the path of a Peace Making, World Leader.

In respose to your citings of the articles of the UN, i could very well fill this response with numerous articles that completely contradict your argument, but instead i have decided to cite only one;

Article One, Section one: "To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace"

Let's break this down, shall we? The first half deals with the responsibility of the UN's members to adhere to the principles of peace keeping, in a COLLECTIVE MANNER. The United States more than obviously abandoned this idea in the war on Iraq, and abandoned it's partners in the UN. The second half of the section deals with the ever-ruling concept of keeping the peace in times when war can be avoided, and the recognition of such situations. Why did the United States exert such power for a country that up to this point, proved no threat to the United States or its' sovereignty; thus stripping the United States of any credible sovereignty it posessed before the war in Iraq.

The UN is an intricle part of the modern world, and to deny this fact, as our government has, is a clear disruption of peace, the very thing the UN is designed to protect. Sovereignty should be reserved for the responsible, not the ignorant.

posted on Jul, 24 2003 @ 04:06 PM
Unfortunately, I must say that I have no clue as what my colleague is referring to when he says,” In what way, over the past 58 years that the United Nations has so crucially been instituted, has the United States' power been unfairly stripped by another country?” I never said that and he is a gross misrepresentation my words.

The argument is “US National Sovereignty is obsolete and should be co-opted by the United Nations.” To which, I responded, “this institution (the United Nations) is ill-suited for the tasks of conducting the business of a nation-state through the usurpation a nation’s sovereignty, in this case, the United States." Here, for the edification of my opponent, I believe I should define “usurpation” to show that it is an accurate description of what is being discussed. Usurpation means to illegally seize and hold power; an illegal appropriation; to co-opt by force. I submit that if the United Nations co-opted U.S. national sovereignty, it is indeed a usurpation and not within the parameters of United Nations mandate; the reasons which I have stated before.

I notice that my opponent often refers to the latest Iraqi war as his premise for UN usurpation of U.S. national sovereignty. I find it rather convenient for him that he fails to mention the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Should the United Nations usurp Russia’s sovereignty as well? Why wasn’t there talk of usurpation here? What of the atrocities in Indonesia? Should the United Nations usurp its sovereignty here too? What are the standards for usurpation? What are the mechanisms for instituting usurpation? Is there a fact-finding committee to decide upon the catalysts for Un usurpation? Is there an appeal from usurpation? Is usurpation really fair to the citizens of the world? Or, as I believe, is this UN usurpation simply an arbitrary mechanism for dissolving governments of sovereignty who are currently out of favor?

If this is so, and I believe it is, this is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory, and unfair for it singles out a country for dissolution upon a whim. And, as I mentioned before, this becomes a slippery slope because, at one time or another, every country falls from popular favor.

posted on Jul, 24 2003 @ 04:41 PM
As always, i would like to thank you for your response, Colonel. Now, in an attempt to wade through Colonels quagmire of no doubt interserting grammar, i will try to prove the futile tailspin his argument has turned into.

In the first section of his response, he states "I never said that and he is a gross misrepresentation my words." I think that he's trying to say i'm twisting his words. In actuality, I am not. By country, i simply meant a country withing the UN, i'm sorry i assumed you knew how how to read into things. Is The UN indeed not a composition of countries from all over the world? As for the Sovereignty of the United States, without being co-opted by the other countries in this composition, the US indeed oversteps its supposed power in an agreement that IT signed. If the United States did not want to enter this league, it should have decided this BEFORE THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HELPED FOR IT IN 1945.

The reason US Sovereignty is obsolete is simple because, in essence, the United States and its ruling officials, do not respect the sovereignty of ANY OTHER WORLD NATION. If the United States wants it, the United States gets it, without due cause.

In regard to the citing of the actions taken by Russia in Afghanistan, or the horrors in Indonesia, i simply say this; I thought this argument was about US sovereignty and the UN's need to stay the aggression of America, not about other nations?

In any event, undoubtedly, with the way the last few years have been handeled by the American government, its Sovereignty must be quelled for the good of the peace; the one thing the United Nations was created for. This is why the UN is needed terribly in this day and age in America, for the good of its' people, not its politicians.

posted on Jul, 24 2003 @ 07:09 PM
Again, I am sorry to say that I am at a loss as to what point my opponent is trying to convey. However, I am trying my best as I suspect you are as well. In his last pointless ramblings, he states “the US indeed oversteps its supposed power in an agreement that IT signed. If the United States did not want to enter this league, it should have decided this BEFORE THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HELPED FOR IT IN 1945.” I believe it to be a common understanding that to join a coalition of nations does not imply a sacrifice to sovereignty. If that were the case, the United States would have given up sovereignty in NAFTA, the World Trade Organization, ASEAN, and numerous other international and regional organizations. We all know this is not even remotely the case.

However, I do have to remark on one issue my opponent raises where he states that US sovereignty is forfeit because it does not respect the sovereignty of other nations. This is a complete falsehood, stemming from repeated grasping at straws and fantasy arguments couched in poorly placed ten dollar words. National sovereignty is not given nor taken as my opponent implies in the second paragraph of his third response. It is established through the 3 prerequisites and I will state them again: identifiable boundaries, a system of governing, and a means to defend both boundaries and form of government. Although one could argue that national sovereignty may be attained through recognition from other nations, I disagree. Even though a country may not be recognized by others, its establishment through the three prerequisites cannot be ignored. The United States does not recognize North Korea as a country but, it cannot ignore the reality that it a country with national sovereignty.

Furthermore, having established that sovereignty can neither be given nor taken, I would argue that the United Nations attempting to TAKE national sovereignty away from the United States would be a gross injustice to the American peoples and an ominous warning for other nations of the world for they know it could happen to them.

At this point, I would like to clarify AGAIN the topic of this debate for my beguiled opponent. The topic of this debate is “US National Sovereignty is obsolete and should be co-opted by the United Nations. “ Nowhere does it say “and the UN's need to stay the aggression of America,” as my opponent has boldly interjected in hopes of putting forth his delusional ranting. As such, my unanswered questions on Russia, Indonesia, and other like countries remain and my premise stands: to have the UN co-opt the United States would be egregious and unfair to the people of the United States and, eventually, to the people of the world.

posted on Jul, 24 2003 @ 07:42 PM
In response to Colnel's last post, i apologize once again for not writing my replies in a simple " Dick and Jane " style so as to make them easier for you to understand. And as for "ten dollar words" as you put it, i'll leave the erroneus word bombardment to you.

To simplify things a bit, I will write in very understandable terms. All of the points I have made so far are indeed THE REASONS why the United States has lost its sovereignity and must be internationally headed by the UN to stave off the future disasters no doubt looming in front of America as we know it.

For your reading comprehension, Colonel, i will readress my points in a simple diagram:

The United States of America has lost its' sovereignity because;

A) The "lying at leisure" used in the 80's due to illegal arm sales to Iran.
B) In its attempts to liberate the people of Kuwait, the supposed "authoritative and all-powerful" United States walked out on a country of tyranically ruled people, instead of finishing what it started.
C) Numerous reports have been proven that the merciless slaughter perpetrated against the people of America could have been stemmed, had the United States Government acted upon this knowledge. Later, the United States went on destroying entire nations deemed "terrorist states".
D) In spite of constant pleading from the MAJORITY of the United States' allies IN THE UNITED NATIONS, the United States invaded Iraq on the account that Iraq posessed weapons that posed an immediate threat to the security of the nation; after the invasion, no evidence of these nation threatening weapons were found.

The United States must be co-opted by the United Nations in ALL international affairs because;

A) Since the Korean War, foreign relations have steadily been coming unhinged between America and its international neighbors.
B) The declining attention payed to the wishes of the United States' allies will undoubtedly lead down dark, rough roads for all nations involved.
C) Under the recent administration, the United States has become a rogue nation. Indeed, the US has the muscle to do so, but has history not repeated itsself more than once in the event that an empire becomes too big for its britches.

It's all too easy to dismiss my accusations and arguments as off-topic, or whatever your jockeying tactic is, but its a totally different thing to answer them in a direct fashion. In closing this response, i have just one more question. The people of the world would be effected how exactly by a joint US/UN coopt? I have a feeling theres a whole lot of dead people that supposed US sovereignty has claimed that would very strongly disagree with you, Colonel.

posted on Jul, 24 2003 @ 08:16 PM
In closing, i would like to thank my fellow debater, Colonel, for agreeing to this experiment.

In pursuit of establishing a well rounded argument, hopefully i have proved to the moderators and my peers alike that the UN must remain an integral part of the nervous system of the American animal. Withoutthe co-opted association of the US and the UN, the united states is, simply, doomed. The times are changing; who commands authority among the myriad of nations on this planet? The answer is noone. Sovereignty in form, had dissolved for the US, as it has for other Nations around the world. It is time for the US to wake up and realize that it is time to unite; not to dissolve the nations, but to band together in pursuit of the common good; that word we have all been longing to hear for so long;


posted on Jul, 24 2003 @ 08:31 PM
In closing, I, too, would like to thank Goregrinder for this debate.

I feel that I have proven that U.S. national sovereignty is not obsolete by the explanation that the three prerequisites in forming a nation-state which leads to national sovereignty remain intact for the United States. Furthermore, I feel that I have soundly proven that the co-opting of U.S. sovereignty by the United Nations is flatly wrong because such a move would be against the U.N. Charter, a harm to the American peoples, discriminatory to the United States in fact, and a dangerous slippery slope for the rest of the nations of the world. I thank you for your time in this matter.

posted on Jul, 24 2003 @ 08:40 PM
I decline the option of rebuttle to Colonels conclusion.

posted on Jul, 24 2003 @ 08:46 PM
I have no further comments to make for this debate.

new topics

top topics


log in