| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is what it is. If Tuvala can't give money, maybe more manpower (not troops, obviously) or something else...or if they are so insignificant, why are they a member nation? But Tuvala isn't the issue. UK only pays 88 mil. France even less.
Paying based on GDP isn't the best method, unless you're encouraging all nations to get to the point that their GDPs can compete equally.Absolute veto is nice, and deserved. But when you figure if we weren't part of the UN, we'd still have a full veto considering our own sovereignty, and with our reach and power, it's laughable. If the US wasn't part of the UN, there would be no UN.
Tuvalu's population is 10,544 people and the islands are sinking...
The US didnt have to have the UN.... It could have all been run out of Geneva but the US wanted to counter a Euro centric UN.
The UN is financed from assessed and voluntary contributions from member states. The General Assembly approves the regular budget and determines the assessment for each member. This is broadly based on the relative capacity of each country to pay, as measured by their gross national income (GNI), with adjustments for external debt and low per capita income.
Top 10 Member States in assessment for the UN regular budget, 2005
Assessment rates/amount
Country (per cent) ($millions)
United States 22.00 362.7
Japan 19.47 279.6
Germany 8.66 124.4
United Kingdom 6.13 88.0
France 6.03 86.6
Italy 4.89 70.2
Canada 2.81 40.4
Spain 2.52 36.2
China 2.05 29.5
Mexico 1.88 27.0
From this its about right but China should be paying more.
NOBODY is as RICH in money and human resources (the sheer number of Skilled and Educated people) as the US....
As for states and troops for Peace Keeping duties.
You will find that the poorest states top out the Peace keeping as they have lots of people but no money to contribute.
1 Bangladesh 10,736
2 Pakistan 10,691
3 India 8,935
4 Nigeria 5,709
5 Egypt 5,458
6 Nepal 5,044
7 Jordan 3,826
8 Ghana 3,647
9 Rwanda 3,635
10 Uruguay 2,489
70 United States 82
How does the UN budget compare with those of other organizations?
To gain some perspective on the UN's expenditures - nearly $1.9 billion per year for the UN alone and about $15 billion for the entire UN system - compare them with expenditures by governments and by other bodies:
Metropolitan Tokyo's Fire Department has a budget of 237.5 billion yen (approximately $2.2 billion).
Time Warner, the media conglomerate, spent nearly $3.3 billion on advertising in 2004.
The administrative budget of the 25-country European Community for 2004 amounted to €5.73 billion (approximately $7.3 billion).
The annual budget of the New York City Board of Education - not counting pensions and debt-servicing costs - amounts to some $12.4 billion.
Bonuses paid out on Wall Street for 2005 rose to an all-time high of $21.5 billion.
The World Health Organization (WHO) - which has dramatically reduced or eliminated entirely the incidence of a number of diseases worldwide, including smallpox and polio - has an annual budget of $440 million. That's less than the cost of a luxury liner (more than $450 million for Holland America Line's "Grand Princess") or the new baseball stadium to be built in Washington, D.C. (at least $535 million).
How is the UN budget decided?
UN spending is determined through a rigorous process involving all Member States. The budget is initially proposed to the General Assembly by the Secretary-General, after careful scrutiny of requests from individual UN departments. It is then analyzed by the 16-member Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions and by the 34-member Committee for Programme and Coordination. The Committees' recommendations go to the General Assembly's Administrative and Budgetary Committee, made up of all Member States, which gives the budget further scrutiny. Finally, it is sent to the General Assembly for final review and approval.
Since 1988, the budget has been approved by consensus - a practice that gives countries the leverage to restrain increases.
Is the budget growing too fast?
In real terms - that is, after allowing for inflation and currency fluctuations - the budget has declined significantly over the past decade, despite constant demands from Member States for new programmes and activities.
From 1994, when the Assembly adopted a two-year budget of just over $2.6 billion, through 2005, the Secretariat carried out its work with the same or a lower level of resources. The budget for 2006-2007, at $3.79 billion, is only nominally more, in real terms, than the 1994 budget - which was equal to some $3.5 billion in 2005 dollars.
Bonuses paid out on Wall Street for 2005 exceed the budget of the entire UN system by over $6 billion!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm gonna have to make apologies to all, but I have got to get caught up on my school work-- papers are coming due and I do not have time to engage in the debates here as much as they deserve. Gonna try to follow along, but I have to mainly take my leave of actively presenting arguments for a while.
Couple'a quick comments before I fade to watching:
Smarnil-- I agree with you, re-- we need to treat people captured in war (including insurgents) as POWs-- I'm a little surprised you didn't see that already, since I said I was appalled by the way my gov't has decided to handle the issue. I'm not sure there is a good answer to the insurgent dilemma, because you're right: if you're an insurgent, you're going to have to make use of the ability to blend in with the population, or you will be caught and destroyed much faster. On the other hand-- by doing so, they guarantee that the civilian population is at massively increased risk, because it becomes extremely difficult to determine who's an insurgent, and who's just a (stupid) civilian engaged in suspicious-looking but still innocent activity. Insofar as we have actually launched attacks on homes and buildings that really did just have innocent civilians (and no insurgents inside), it's because the mistake is easy to make when the insurgents and the general population all look the same.
Regarding the U.N.-- at this point, yes, I hold a very very low opinion of the U.N.-- because the General Assembly is overrun with the vast horde of small nations with no teeth, run by questionable governments, all of whom think they should get to have an equal voice no matter how little they contribute-- and the resolutions passed by the General Assembly have included a lot of crap; meanwhile, in the Security Council, where the real decisions get made-- sometimes it's the U.S. Veto, sometimes it's the Russians or the Chinese-- but, the U.N. is utterly useless most of the time when it counts, because in most critical situations, one of the five permanent members is going to drop...
I have no problem with the invasion of Afghanistan. As soon as the attacks were made Australia offered its military to be deployed where ever it was needed.
I (and 99%) of Australians disagreed with Iraq but we went with the US as we are allies and that is what allies do.
I believe the biggest impediment to peace in the middle east is the occupied territories and the failure to create a Palestinian state - the rest of the world believes this and it is on the US and Israel that are stopping it from happening in the UN.
Francois Michel, are you out there?
Hello!
Hey, whatever happened to Galt Patriot?
He was great!
Vive le Galt!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ninja'ed. But in short Kryzbyn, there's a history to the UN that you seem to be eager to discount, ignore, or claim american hands were entirely behind, which isn't true. As for the "They pay no rent!!!" claims, well, they don't. But I've visited the neighborhood dozens upon dozens of times, and money does flow from the UN into NY(at least) quite readily. I went to school with two diplomat's kids(not everyone sends their kids to the school on the grounds), and they had to pay to get on the bus just like everyone else. There's a lot of misinformation, rumor, and just plain silliness that people attribute to diplomat status, and by extension, the UN.
Hee hee! Probably not.
But there are different kinds of not sober and some of them are more civil than others.
I'm gonna have to make apologies to all, but I have got to get caught up on my school work-- papers are coming due and I do not have time to engage in the debates here as much as they deserve. Gonna try to follow along, but I have to mainly take my leave of actively presenting arguments for a while.
Couple'a quick comments before I fade to watching:
Smarnil-- I agree with you, re-- we need to treat people captured in war (including insurgents) as POWs-- I'm a little surprised you didn't see that already, since I said I was appalled by the way my gov't has decided to handle the issue. I'm not sure there is a good answer to the insurgent dilemma, because you're right: if you're an insurgent, you're going to have to make use of the ability to blend in with the population, or you will be caught and destroyed much faster. On the other hand-- by doing so, they guarantee that the civilian population is at massively increased risk, because it becomes extremely difficult to determine who's an insurgent, and who's just a (stupid) civilian engaged in suspicious-looking but still innocent activity. Insofar as we have actually launched attacks on homes and buildings that really did just have innocent civilians (and no insurgents inside), it's because the mistake is easy to make when the insurgents and the general population all look the same.
No prob, real life happens.
Well, I did note we agreed on a lot of things. But as I wasn't really trying to convince you of anything, it wasn't a motive to give you a cold shoulder and cut out the discussion... I like debate for the sake of it : did I mention I'm a lawyer?
Just curious : what field are you studying?
I think that all of the permanent members of the UN Security Council can be considered "rogue states", since they have the power to pursue their goals without any fear of any kind of sanction - and they use that power. Frequently. I have a privilege of being a citizen of a country that was bombed by US. At the time, that was called an action of mercy, but we were a bit cynical about that and assumed that it had something to do with spinning away the Monika Levinski scandal.
So, right now most of the people hate US. At the same time, US movies are the most popular ones; most of the younger generation has at least a smattering of English; books by American authors are by far the most popular - even more than those by British or Canadian authors; American comics have a devoted following.
Most people here can perceive the difference between the actions of US government and ordinary American people. The most common opinion of US, perhaps, is that it is the nation of hypocrites with an addiction to bad food. Perhaps that opinion is not based in reality, but there it is.
Hmmm... Serbia?
Maybe it had too something to do with some not-very-nice policies of your government? The USA are a big country, but even they can't be wrong every time...
Ninja'ed. But in short Kryzbyn, there's a history to the UN that you seem to be eager to discount, ignore, or claim american hands were entirely behind, which isn't true. As for the "They pay no rent!!!" claims, well, they don't. But I've visited the neighborhood dozens upon dozens of times, and money does flow from the UN into NY(at least) quite readily. I went to school with two diplomat's kids(not everyone sends their kids to the school on the grounds), and they had to pay to get on the bus just like everyone else. There's a lot of misinformation, rumor, and just plain silliness that people attribute to diplomat status, and by extension, the UN.
I'm not discounting anything.
How many UN resolutions that had to be enforeced with arms had no US military troops since the UN's creation?Whats important is the overall effectiveness of the UN.
If anything, what I'm saying is the US is not the UN, but that seems to be how things go.
When we feel we need to take action (justified or not) it's usually only a matter of time until the security council acquiesces, and we go do it anyway. Why the middle man? Why are they needed?
The humanitarian missions of the UN, I guess, do some good, some times.
That's worthy to contribute to, when it works as intended.
But overall, really?
Regarding the U.N.-- at this point, yes, I hold a very very low opinion of the U.N.-- because the General Assembly is overrun with the vast horde of small nations with no teeth, run by questionable governments, all of whom think they should get to have an equal voice no matter how little they contribute-- and the resolutions passed by the General Assembly have included a lot of crap; meanwhile, in the Security Council, where the real decisions get made-- sometimes it's the U.S. Veto, sometimes it's the Russians or the Chinese-- but, the U.N. is utterly useless most of the time when it counts, because in most critical situations, one of the five permanent members is going to drop a veto on it. And-- because the U.N. IS functionally impotent-- there ARE NO United Nations forces, there are only the forces that member nations are willing to provide.... and in too many cases, that means either the United States/Europe/NATO gets involved and actually gets the job done-- or nothing gets done. The United Nations is a great idea, but once again it's been very very poor in execution.
I have no problem with the invasion of Afghanistan. As soon as the attacks were made Australia offered its military to be deployed where ever it was needed.
I (and 99%) of Australians disagreed with Iraq but we went with the US as we are allies and that is what allies do.
I believe the biggest impediment to peace in the middle east is the occupied territories and the failure to create a Palestinian state - the rest of the world believes this and it is on the US and Israel that are stopping it from happening in the UN.
No problem with Afghanistan either. Note that it was approved by the UN, as was Lybia more recently. So much for the UN reputation as a never-acting bureaucracy in time of crisis.
They did oppose the Iraq war on the basis that there was no conclusive evidence of WMDs or of links with Al Qaeda. Guess what? They were proven right, at the end.
On the other hand, they completely failed to prevent the Rwanda slaughters, or to find a peaceful resolution to the yugoslavian conflicts (but nobody did better). They are currently trying to find a solution to the Syrian crisis despite the russian opposition, with few results so far.
They honestly can't be blamed for their failure to end the palestinian conflict, as their efforts for peace have met strong opposition from the USA for decades.
@Kryzbyn, about the rent argument: did you know that the UN headquarters would have been in Geneva (as the SDN HQ was) if the USA hadn't vehemently asked to put it in New York? The gratuity of the rent was part of the US bid. I suppose the idea was to get more control on the organization... Blame the Truman governement, but not the UN, for that.
Have you other bad things to say about the UN, other than "they ask us to pay a contribution based on our world GNP share"? It sounds, well, somewhat petty... Even if you paid for everything in the UN (5,15 billion dollars), that would be only a drop in the ocean of your federal budget (3.615,00 billion dollars).
Ninja'ed. But in short Kryzbyn, there's a history to the UN that you seem to be eager to discount, ignore, or claim american hands were entirely behind, which isn't true. As for the "They pay no rent!!!" claims, well, they don't. But I've visited the neighborhood dozens upon dozens of times, and money does flow from the UN into NY(at least) quite readily. I went to school with two diplomat's kids(not everyone sends their kids to the school on the grounds), and they had to pay to get on the bus just like everyone else. There's a lot of misinformation, rumor, and just plain silliness that people attribute to diplomat status, and by extension, the UN.I'm not discounting anything.
How many UN resolutions that had to be enforeced with arms had no US military troops since the UN's creation?
Whats important is the overall effectiveness of the UN.
If anything, what I'm saying is the US is not the UN, but that seems to be how things go.
When we feel we need to take action (justified or not) it's usually only a matter of time until the security council acquiesces, and we go do it anyway. Why the middle man? Why are they needed?
The humanitarian missions of the UN, I guess, do some good, some times.
That's worthy to contribute to, when it works as intended.
But overall, really?
The ADF's size and capability is typical for a Western nation with Australia's economic and population base.
The Australian Defence Forces (Army, Navy, Air force)
Active personnel 59,023 (ranked 68)
Reserve personnel 21,850 (Active)
22,166 (Standby)
The ADF has the capability to undertake peacekeeping and low-intensity warfare operations independently in Australia's region and can sustain such deployments for a lengthy period. It is also capable of leading international peacekeeping forces in the Asia-Pacific region and the ADF is capable of defending all of its Pacific neighbours and countries to the north such as the Philippines and Papua New Guinea.
I can list 3 Military UN sanctioned interventions that Australia were involved in and are or were the major contributors with 0-minimal US military involvement.
Bougainville, East Timor and the Solomon Islands.
In comparison
The US Military
As of 30 September 2010, 1,430,895 people were on active duty in the military, with an additional 848,000 people in the seven reserve components.
The US is one of the few nations that can project its self all over the world in multiple theatres. People prefer US because they know that the US will screw them the least. Nobody wants or trusts China or Russia to assist.
As for getting other countries to take up the burden.
The UK and Europe can only project into 2-3 separate regions and even then they have been made to be so dependant on the US (US Policy) they are unable co-ordinate themselves. If you want Europe (not including the UK as they are their own special little snowflakes) to contribute more.... You need to cut them some slack, encourage the Germans to project more military outside Germany (good luck with that), Let the French (The French are excellent soldiers - WW2 and Vietnam they had poor leadership) have more command and responsibility and pull more US servicemen out of Europe and force the Europeans to take responsibility for their own defence...
The problem with doing this is Europe has different wants and needs to what the US does, and often very different opinions. Give them a significant military then they can back their political agenda with (threat of) force.
Does the US want a reinvigorated Euro-Military/Economic power...?
So you got a choice keep the Europeans from being able to start s@!! up and take the lions share of being the worlds sheriff or add more players to the table and have an as technologically advanced player and alternative for leadership(with motives that can oppose US policy)on the world game board.
The UN is not perfect - its Job primarily is to help prevent a Third World War and in that role it has provided an avenue through which countries can diffuse diplomatic issues.
I think that people today or people like Australians and Americans who's countries were not devastated by the previous world wars do not understand how the UN has helped reshape Europe and prevent the 25-30 year cycle of devastating warfare that it experienced.
Ninja'ed. But in short Kryzbyn, there's a history to the UN that you seem to be eager to discount, ignore, or claim american hands were entirely behind, which isn't true. As for the "They pay no rent!!!" claims, well, they don't. But I've visited the neighborhood dozens upon dozens of times, and money does flow from the UN into NY(at least) quite readily. I went to school with two diplomat's kids(not everyone sends their kids to the school on the grounds), and they had to pay to get on the bus just like everyone else. There's a lot of misinformation, rumor, and just plain silliness that people attribute to diplomat status, and by extension, the UN.I'm not discounting anything.
How many UN resolutions that had to be enforeced with arms had no US military troops since the UN's creation?
Whats important is the overall effectiveness of the UN.
If anything, what I'm saying is the US is not the UN, but that seems to be how things go.
When we feel we need to take action (justified or not) it's usually only a matter of time until the security council acquiesces, and we go do it anyway. Why the middle man? Why are they needed?
The humanitarian missions of the UN, I guess, do some good, some times.
That's worthy to contribute to, when it works as intended.
But overall, really?
Quite the contrary : most UN resolutions are enforced by other armies, for two reasons. First, the growing defiance between the UN and the USA; second, US troops can't be deployed in the vast majority of peacekeeping missions (those with cool acronyms, such as MINUK, FINUL, etc.) because they aren't seen as neutral by one or both of the conflicting parties (in the best cases, when the USA aren't positively hated by the locals).
You can see here the current US contribution in military and civilian personnel to the UN efforts : 0, and 0. The largest contributors are India, Bengladesh and your friends the Pakistani.
The only resolutions in which the USA get involved are the ones that involve the use of offensive force, much less numerous (in the last twenty years, Gulf War I, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Lybia). In those instances, they usually bear an heavy load, in accordance with the huge size of their armed forces. Though, I do remember that the USA did refuse to send ground troops in Yugoslavia (the europeans did the grunt work) and withdrew quite quickly from the Lybia airstrikes (but did continue to provide us with support, by supplying bombs). It seems that the USA aren't so keen to participate in UN offensive missions when their interests aren't directly at stake...
[edit] And about your affirmation that the security council always ends up agreeing with you "when (the USA) feel the need to take action (justified or not)", please tell me when this agreement took place for the 2003 invasion of Iraq ? Or the Panama invasion? Or the Grenada invasion ?
Interesting.
Your thoughts, Kryzbyn?
That actually makes me happy to see. Other countries bearing more of the burden.
On the Libyan airstrikes, I would like to have been 0 involved. I think everyone was fed a line of crap on that one.
As far as them agreeing with Iraq or Panama or Grenada, who cares? Perhaps they didn't. They probably sent us a very stern letter saying we were naughty. Those may more be exceptions to the rule, but in the end, the UN will never risk action that will get them kicked out of the US, or have the US leave the UN.
How effectual is that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like the UN, either, Citizen Kryzbyn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That actually makes me happy to see. Other countries bearing more of the burden.
On the Libyan airstrikes, I would like to have been 0 involved. I think everyone was fed a line of crap on that one.
As far as them agreeing with Iraq or Panama or Grenada, who cares? Perhaps they didn't. They probably sent us a very stern letter saying we were naughty. Those may more be exceptions to the rule, but in the end, the UN will never risk action that will get them kicked out of the US, or have the US leave the UN.
How effectual is that?
On this topic, you’re on par with the stance practiced by republican US governments for at least thirty years, since Reagan and the “neocon revolution”. The democrats usually get into the motions of international cooperation, but in fact do little more.
Though; the way you describe it makes the US government sounds like a bully boy unable to change his ways until a bigger and meaner one beat him into pulp, which made me smile…
If your question is “will the UN bomb us into submission to make us comply with the rules we ourselves set back in 1942 on the USS Augusta’s deck, then in 1945 in San Francisco”, the answer is a clear no. Being kicked out of the US isn’t a serious threat for the UN either : a lot of countries would be glad and honoured to welcome them on their soil.
In psychology, the development of ethics is supposed to take place in two steps. In the first stage, the subject (a young child) only follows rules for fear of punishment. In the second one, as he matures, he comes to understand the intrinsic values of the rules (meant to prevent danger, to ease relationships, etc.), becomes its own warden and follows rules even when he is not in risk of getting caught. Some subjects are stuck all their lives in the first stage. We can only hope that the US government will grow wiser (or more exactly, will get back the level of wisdom and farsightedness Roosevelt had at the end of WW2) before the whole planet is a mess.
What you (and they) completely fail to understand (or remember : short term historical memory seems to be a common American ailment) is that the UN was meant as a pressure valve for international conflicts, an alternative way opened for peaceful resolution of conflicts before they degenerate into violence and war, as they did with fearsome regularity before its creation.
So, here is the root of the problem : the US government refuses to recognize the UN authority in international matters and don’t give a damn about international rules when they don’t suit US interests. So, when the US government is involved, there is no such safety valve, as it will do as it pleases regardless of UN sanction or condemnation, and/or prevent the UN action using its veto. What realistic options are left to some state or population having serious grievances against the US government in that situation ? None. They have to choose between rolling over nursing a grudge for the next ten generations, or blowing up some embassy or plane, taking pot shots at poor grunts, etc.
What I mean is that : at the end, this american stance (which we can call the 4B stance, for Big Bad Bully Boy : I really love the way you described it!) is counterproductive. As nobody likes bullies, such behaviour is sure to provoke unease and disgust among your allies, and waves of radiant hate among all others.
Have you travelled in the middle east ? I did visit Lebanon, Syria and Egypt with a diplomat friend of mine, who speak fluent arab. Do yo know the trick to get free drinks in any arab country ? Being european, not american. I spent a month there, back in 2000, and there wasn’t a day where some guy didn’t ask me my nationality. For a time, I considered wearing a tricolour t-shirt. As our president just had a clash with the israelians about the Palestinian territories, we were treated as rockstars.
The war on terror is a self fulfilling prophecy. Yes, you will keep having your way in any straight conflict, as you have an huge army and nobody is willing to bomb you (what would be the point?). And yes, your army will have to keep growing larger and larger, as violence only fosters violence and you cut yourself out of the peaceful options offered by the UN. It’s truly sad.
PS : on Lybia, I have read stuff on american sites claiming that the threat was faked by the lybian opposition, and that there was no danger to civilians and so no need for a speedy intervention. BS : our friend Kadhafi went live on TV as his troops converged Benghazi to vow that the town would be harshly punished for its rebellious ways. Himself. How exactly the opposition would have faked that ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spoilered for left-wing ranting
America is a rogue state.
The UN is a den of imperialist thieves and butchers who has given a couple of seats to their victims.
Polite "socialist-humanitarian interventionist-French" imperialism still results in dead Arab babies.
Workers revolution is the only forward.
Vive le Galt!
Spoilered for left-wing ranting
** spoiler omitted **
Vive le Galt!
French imperialism is more efficient : we do evacuate before invading in the first place. Saves a lot of time.
Are in need of some cybersex? I'm quite handy with a mouse. :)
I am always in need of cybersex, semi-Comrade le Couard!
so we have a nation that fragrantly ignores international law whenever it feels like it, flouts human rights violations, spent most of the last century threatening anyone they didn't like with nukes, is taking increasingly opressive measures against its own people in the name of security, has a massively corrupt government, invades other nations for their natural resources... and more.
does this behavior classify America a rogue state, just one too big and powerful to take down? you know what, there are plenty of americans around here to speak for themselves. Given some of the other messageboards around here, i know that several of our regular posters will have something to say on the subject. let's keep this civil people and, let's face it, i'd love to be convinced i'm wrong on this one.
"Lets keep this civil"? LOL. Thats funny after saying all that. I would like to say lets make this conversation factual, not a fabrication of your fanstasy.
I and many Americans have had enough. We are sick and tired of our politicians selling us out to foreign interests. Its time to put America first. Against All!
so we have a nation that fragrantly ignores international law whenever it feels like it, flouts human rights violations, spent most of the last century threatening anyone they didn't like with nukes, is taking increasingly opressive measures against its own people in the name of security, has a massively corrupt government, invades other nations for their natural resources... and more.
does this behavior classify America a rogue state, just one too big and powerful to take down? you know what, there are plenty of americans around here to speak for themselves. Given some of the other messageboards around here, i know that several of our regular posters will have something to say on the subject. let's keep this civil people and, let's face it, i'd love to be convinced i'm wrong on this one.
"Lets keep this civil"? LOL. Thats funny after saying all that. I would like to say lets make this conversation factual, not a fabrication of your fanstasy.
I and many Americans have had enough. We are sick and tired of our politicians selling us out to foreign interests. Its time to put America first. Against All!
Hi Aretas! How are you doin'?
I wasn't under the impression that your politicians were selling you to foreign interests (emphasis mine), but hey, why not? Care to discuss your feelings about it ?
As an afterthought, the only case I can think of where the USA cares about foreign interests is Israel. They have really gone the extra thousand miles to stand by them against... almost everybody else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't under the impression that your politicians were selling you to foreign interests (emphasis mine), but hey, why not? Care to discuss your feelings about it ?
The corporations that make money off of the oil are extra national, and its their interests, not those of the american people, that are driving our decision making process.
I wasn't under the impression that your politicians were selling you to foreign interests (emphasis mine), but hey, why not? Care to discuss your feelings about it ?The corporations that make money off of the oil are extra national, and its their interests, not those of the american people, that are driving our decision making process.
Got your point. But extra national doesn't mean foreign (as in, belonging to a foreign country). What you just said doesn't contradict my previous statement (sorry, can't help it : consider this kind of nitpicking as a professional disease).
It's a shame that america is so hated for a stance in the middle east (israel) that many americans are starting to become very disenfranchised with. Why must we fix every one elses problems if we can't even figure our own s+~@ out?
I am always in need of cybersex, semi-Comrade le Couard!
<scroll, scroll, scroll>
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isolationism has strong appeal when there hasn't been a big global boogeyman for 20+ years.
Let's fix our stuff and leave the 'tardlets to buy our 2nd-grade weapons to blow each other to kingdom come with, eh?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a difference between isolationism and non-interventionism.
Ah, true. Thanks for pointing that out as the spirit of what I was (trying) to say. o7
"Lets keep this civil"? LOL. Thats funny after saying all that. I would like to say lets make this conversation factual, not a fabrication of your fanstasy.
I and many Americans have had enough. We are sick and tired of our politicians selling us out to foreign interests. Its time to put America first. Against All!
I'm going to clip this post and frame it. Thank you, Citizen Aretas.
so we have a nation that fragrantly ignores international law whenever it feels like it, flouts human rights violations, spent most of the last century threatening anyone they didn't like with nukes, is taking increasingly opressive measures against its own people in the name of security, has a massively corrupt government, invades other nations for their natural resources... and more.
does this behavior classify America a rogue state, just one too big and powerful to take down? you know what, there are plenty of americans around here to speak for themselves. Given some of the other messageboards around here, i know that several of our regular posters will have something to say on the subject. let's keep this civil people and, let's face it, i'd love to be convinced i'm wrong on this one.
"Lets keep this civil"? LOL. Thats funny after saying all that. I would like to say lets make this conversation factual, not a fabrication of your fanstasy.
I and many Americans have had enough. We are sick and tired of our politicians selling us out to foreign interests. Its time to put America first. Against All!
Hi Aretas! How are you doin'?
I wasn't under the impression that your politicians were selling you to foreign interests (emphasis mine), but hey, why not? Care to discuss your feelings about it ?
As an afterthought, the only case I can think of where the USA cares about foreign interests is Israel. They have really gone the extra thousand miles to stand by them against... almost everybody else.
Yes we will stand by them. Are you interested in the US getting out of the way so militant Islam can push the Jews into the sea? The US could have removed itself from the region during the cold war so the Soviets could have done what they pleased.
Israel is a strategic ally & a friend of the US.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes we will stand by them. Are you interested in the US getting out of the way so militant Islam can push the Jews into the sea?
Since the alternative was militant Judaism pushing muslims into increasingly smaller and smaller areas to the point that they became unlivable, yes. Six of one, half a dozen of the other= no need to get involved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I just don't understand why the USA needs to be allied with Israel if it should be AMERICA AGAINST ALL!!, Citizen Aretas.
"Your critical of Islam? Dead!"
Under my Grammarian Dictatorship, constant confusion of "your" and "you're" would also be punishable by death!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I removed some posts and the replies to them.
I realize this is a sensitive topic for many people, but posting angry isn't going to help de-escalate any arguments. Take a deep breath, maybe re-read your post to make sure it says what you really mean before hitting submit.
Also, flag it and move on.
I guess I missed Aretas' angry retort. My bad. :)
I stand by my deleted post, you all can look up the facts. Flagging my post does not erase reality in the real world guys.
Take care.
"Your critical of Islam? Dead!"Under my Grammarian Dictatorship, constant confusion of "your" and "you're" would also be punishable by death!
I'm not anti Islamist. I and many of my Muslim friends are anti Islamo-Nazis who kill in the name of Allah.
I'm not a Theocrat so please don't call me that.
Peace.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For myself, I am anti-fanaticism and anti-totalitarianism. Doesn't win me much support when discussing with religious people, but still. If someone murders, lies and so on, and backs it up with some kind of religious dogma, then that person is a problem. If the dogma happens to be political instead, such as communism or such, it's just as much a problem. I think this world would be a good sight better if people understood that their rabid views CAN NOT be supported by dogma, they have to take responsibility for their views THEMSELVES.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I stand by my deleted post, you all can look up the facts. Flagging my post does not erase reality in the real world guys.
Take care.
Oh, you are mistaken. I didn't flag anything, as I truly, completely missed your answer and have absolutely no idea of what it was.
Guess it was somehow sufficient to throw the Byersometer off the dial.
For my part, I just hold Israel to the same standards as anyone else, that is : upholding past agreements, and human rights for all, including palestinians.
Short answer: no.
Long answer: The United States is not a rogue state because 'rogue state' is just a label the US political elite slaps on small and relatively weak states that pose obstacles to US foreign policy goals-- or small states that make for convenient scapegoats.
The US has a number of clients and allies that commit many of the same sorts of human rights abuses that we read about in places like Cuba or Iran.
North Korea might be a special case. I get the impression that even the Chinese don't much like the North Korean regime-- but they have to deal with it and they don't want us fooling around in their corner of the world.
YMMV
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nah it's the same old game that's been played for centuries.
There's nothing new under the sun. Read history. All the same tricks in new packages.
The Rogue State Game...Next they will nuke their own population and blame the Russians gaining a +2 Propaganda bonus to production.