|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
I like him.
I don't want to highjack this thread - but in the second video - starting at about 1:25 and going to about 2:15.......Paul states that "last week, on the hill, at a meeting, this administration was asked if they support assassinations, and they said yes. And then they were asked if they supported assassinations of u.s. citizens, and they said yes if they person was a "threat"...
And then he said the administration has a list of 3 people right now?????????????????????
Did I hear that correctly? Can someone else listen to that and correct me if I'm wrong? Does our gov't. have a list of 3 u.s. citizens at this time?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102 |
Quote:
Does our gov't. have a list of 3 u.s. citizens at this time?
I've seen pictures at the post office.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
Quote:
Does our gov't. have a list of 3 u.s. citizens at this time?
I've seen pictures at the post office.
Wanted criminals is one thing....you know, people that have done something wrong already?
But my question is/was: Does our gov't. have a list of u.s. citizens that it wants to assassinate?
What happened to being arrested and tried in court?
Exactly what is the "threat" these 3 people pose? If it's not something that can be handled with our current judicial system (you know, where a person is accused of breaking a law, arrested, and tried in court), then what is it?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102 |
What have you got that says these people haven't been tried and convicted in court? p.s. Okay, I went looking for something that put Ron Paul's words in context: http://rawstory.com/2010/02/kill-americans/Renowned blogger/lawyer Glenn Greenwald says program breaks US laws In a striking admission from the Obama Administration's top intelligence officer, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair announced Wednesday that the United States may target its own citizens abroad for death if it believes they are associated with terrorist groups. "We take direct action against terrorists in the intelligence community," Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the House Intelligence Committee. He said US counter-terrorism officials may try to kill American citizens embroiled in extremist groups overseas with "specific permission" from higher up. If "we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that," Blair said in response to questions from the panel's top Republican, Representative Pete Hoekstra. Blair's comments came after The Washington Post reported that US President Barack Obama had embraced predecessor George W. Bush's policy of authorizing the killing of US citizens involved in terrorist activities overseas.
Last edited by Reckon; 02/21/10 01:56 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
What have you got that says these people haven't been tried and convicted in court?
p.s.
Okay, I went looking for something that put Ron Paul's words in context:
http://rawstory.com/2010/02/kill-americans/
Renowned blogger/lawyer Glenn Greenwald says program breaks US laws
In a striking admission from the Obama Administration's top intelligence officer, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair announced Wednesday that the United States may target its own citizens abroad for death if it believes they are associated with terrorist groups.
"We take direct action against terrorists in the intelligence community," Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the House Intelligence Committee. He said US counter-terrorism officials may try to kill American citizens embroiled in extremist groups overseas with "specific permission" from higher up.
If "we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that," Blair said in response to questions from the panel's top Republican, Representative Pete Hoekstra.
Blair's comments came after The Washington Post reported that US President Barack Obama had embraced predecessor George W. Bush's policy of authorizing the killing of US citizens involved in terrorist activities overseas.
Ah.......thanks for finding that.
When Paul was speaking I thought "what????????"
Makes a bit more sense now. Can't say I like the slope this puts us on, because if assassinating u.s. citizens abroad is ok, then it won't be long till assassinating u.s. citizens in the u.s. is okay.
Anyway, thanks for that tidbit. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
I may not like his stance on some aspects of federal non-spending, but I'd like to see what he could do. I'd give him four years to see what would come of it.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,417
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,417 |
I would love to see more people like him in office if only just to counterbalance the FLAGRANT spending spree that's been going on.
It's gotten to the point where both parties throw blame at the other for all the financial mismanagement just so they can keep mismanaging the deficit in their own way.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,138
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,138 |
Could you imagine the media uproar if someone in the Bush administration had said that? 
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Wanted criminals is one thing....you know, people that have done something wrong already?
But my question is/was: Does our gov't. have a list of u.s. citizens that it wants to assassinate?
Which begs the questions. If we have the ability to track and find all these terrorists that put in effort to stay under the radar, why can we not track down all these "Most Wanted" folks, where many are just living lives in plain sight. 
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
I listened to this yesterday. He seems like a genuine enough guy. I do like his points about being too quick to use our military outside of congressional votes. He is right that we have bases in 135 countries.
My contention with him is twofold. First, his end the Fed slogan. IMO the Fed, when used properly, is a good backstop to prevent that bank panics on the early 20th century that seemed to happen every couple years. I don't see it as progress to go back to a time when common people regularly lost their entire savings in a heartbeat. Maybe he has something with Fed reform, as the Fed did play a role in the housing crisis by facilitating very easy credit conditions, but I can't see completely doing away with it. I could be wrong on this, as I don't really understand the whole Fed System that well, just my perceptions.
Second, he wants us to pull out of the UN. To me this is akin to the sort of isolationism the predominated around the globe prior to WWII. Fact is that we are a globalized society now, and we have to care what goes on around the world. We can't just hunker down inside our borders. Taking a tough stance at the UN is okay (like saying we won't be providing all the military for policing the world) but not withdrawing from it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
Quote:
I listened to this yesterday. He seems like a genuine enough guy. I do like his points about being too quick to use our military outside of congressional votes. He is right that we have bases in 135 countries.
My contention with him is twofold. First, his end the Fed slogan. IMO the Fed, when used properly, is a good backstop to prevent that bank panics on the early 20th century that seemed to happen every couple years. I don't see it as progress to go back to a time when common people regularly lost their entire savings in a heartbeat. Maybe he has something with Fed reform, as the Fed did play a role in the housing crisis by facilitating very easy credit conditions, but I can't see completely doing away with it. I could be wrong on this, as I don't really understand the whole Fed System that well, just my perceptions.
Second, he wants us to pull out of the UN. To me this is akin to the sort of isolationism the predominated around the globe prior to WWII. Fact is that we are a globalized society now, and we have to care what goes on around the world. We can't just hunker down inside our borders. Taking a tough stance at the UN is okay (like saying we won't be providing all the military for policing the world) but not withdrawing from it.
Ending the Fed would be the best thing this country has ever done. The Fed is the reason this country is in debt. The Fed is as Federal as Federal Express it is NOT part of the government, it is a privately run, and privately owned independent corporation that sets interest rates, and loans your own money back to you at interest(Every dollar created cost a dollar + whatever % of debt the Fed attaches to it) which is then paid by Americans via the Income tax.
See John L Lewis Vs the United States from the U.S Federal District Court Archives where the Courts themselves state the Fed is NOT part of the government and Congress has no oversight over it.
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/680/1239/200393/
The second point, yes the USa had the greatest prominence and highest standard of living in history when we were isolationist
Ron Paul is NOT talking about complete isolationism
Ron Paul is talking about:
Trading with other countries
talking with them
having diplomatic relations with them
but NOT getting involved in ANY military actions or any treaties that would put us on the hook too...spend that money at home where it needs spent.
As for the UN we shouldn't be part of the UN anyways, its a joke, we foot the WHOLE bill for it anyhow and we do 95% of the work paying for 80% of the worlds bills...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
Ending the Fed would be the best thing this country has ever done. The Fed is the reason this country is in debt. The Fed is as Federal as Federal Express it is NOT part of the government, it is a privately run, and privately owned independent corporation that sets interest rates, and loans your own money back to you at interest(Every dollar created cost a dollar + whatever % of debt the Fed attaches to it) which is then paid by Americans via the Income tax.
I know its not entirely a part of the government. But saying the Fed is responsible for the debt is the same as saying National City Bank is responsible for my credit card bills. They simply extended credit to the US government to finance deficit spending. This is on the government, not the creditor. Getting rid of a creditor is not a viable solution for paying back our debt or preventing future debt.
Quote:
The second point, yes the USa had the greatest prominence and highest standard of living in history when we were isolationist
I don't know what stats back this up, but we were isolationist during the Great Depression.
Show me the stats that say we pay for 80% of the UN bills. As for the UN, there has to be a forum for each country to have it's say. While nothing of this grand scale is ever going to be perfect, we are at a time in history where the whole world is very interdependent. Looking at it another way; if the League of Nations had had any teeth, WWII might have been prevented. So I am for making the UN function better, not everyone withdrawing from it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
I love Ron Paul except for his isolationist tendancies. I mean lets face it. we have interests outside of the borders of this nation and those interests need to be protected. Our earlier isolationism allowed things like Hitlers rise to power and his conquests to happen. Do we need to involve ourself in anything and everything...absolutely not...But Ron Paul definitely would have us heading headfirst into an isolationist policy. Stepping back some good....retreating into our shell (closing all of our overseas bases and such)....bad
I do, however, agree with stepping out of the corrupt organization known as the UN.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
Quote:
Quote:
Ending the Fed would be the best thing this country has ever done. The Fed is the reason this country is in debt. The Fed is as Federal as Federal Express it is NOT part of the government, it is a privately run, and privately owned independent corporation that sets interest rates, and loans your own money back to you at interest(Every dollar created cost a dollar + whatever % of debt the Fed attaches to it) which is then paid by Americans via the Income tax.
I know its not entirely a part of the government. But saying the Fed is responsible for the debt is the same as saying National City Bank is responsible for my credit card bills. They simply extended credit to the US government to finance deficit spending. This is on the government, not the creditor. Getting rid of a creditor is not a viable solution for paying back our debt or preventing future debt.
Quote:
The second point, yes the USa had the greatest prominence and highest standard of living in history when we were isolationist
I don't know what stats back this up, but we were isolationist during the Great Depression.
Show me the stats that say we pay for 80% of the UN bills. As for the UN, there has to be a forum for each country to have it's say. While nothing of this grand scale is ever going to be perfect, we are at a time in history where the whole world is very interdependent. Looking at it another way; if the League of Nations had had any teeth, WWII might have been prevented. So I am for making the UN function better, not everyone withdrawing from it.
tjs7:
Yes getting rid of the creditor IS the answer
why does the U.S government need to "borrow" money from a private bank when it wants to introduce new money into circulation? and pay interest to boot?
Quote:
Article 1 section 8 U.S Constitution - To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
Congress/The USA Government has the legal right under the Constitution to create and coin its own money, control its value, and control interest rates....why should it borrow money at interest from a private bank whenever it wants to do these things?
The American people could save huge sums of interest and actually pay off its debts this way...EXACTLY what the Founders intended.
As for the UN, lets see here, the UN was AGAINST the US invading Iraq..did it stop us? don't think so..therefore it failed...
Besides there DOES NOT need to be a forum for every country to have a say. Each country can maintain their own diplomatic relations among each other. If they want to hold a meeting once a year and discuss things they can all do better, fine, but it should not be required, and that body should have no power to wage sanctions or anything else on other countries.
The UN Violates the sovereignty of other countries..if it can violate Haiti's and other countries, it can one day violate ours...we may not be the top dog in the world forever, one day UN sanctions may be pointed at us..say backed by Chinese and Russian soldiers...you wouldn't be so fond of the UN then would ya?
If 2 countries want to go to war, its none of our business...if they don't attack us we should stay out of it period.
As the Founders of the USA said:
"Trade with all nations, alliance with NONE should be our motto"
WW2 wasn't caused by the League of Nations failing, WW2 was caused by draconian Treaty of Versailles that put such an economic hardship on the German people that it allowed a crazy man like Hitler to take over by merely promising to restore Germany to its former glory and getting out of that treaty. You promise starving broke people anything better and they will listen.
WW2 wouldn't have happened had to League of Nations and others negotiated a more fair treaty at the end of WW1. WW2 was largely caused by that treaty which allow a man like Hitler to gain power by promising the German people a better life then the rags, huts, and empty stomachs they had due to that treaty. The Wiemar Republic was a sham and set up to fail with that treaty, and the German people had one of the poorest and worst off economic times in history due to that.
Hitler was a nut job, I am glad he is gone, but he would have never got a chance to gain power if not for that Treaty of Versailles.
Besides Robert Taft didn't want any part of the UN either, and I agree with him and the Old Wing of the Republican party like Taft and Goldwater.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
From 2006, but it's interesting. UN contributions by member .pdf LINKNet Contributions: - USA $423,464,855 Total contributions: 1,754,673,738 = 24.1%
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,044 |
Quote:
I love Ron Paul except for his isolationist tendancies. I mean lets face it. we have interests outside of the borders of this nation and those interests need to be protected. Our earlier isolationism allowed things like Hitlers rise to power and his conquests to happen. Do we need to involve ourself in anything and everything...absolutely not...But Ron Paul definitely would have us heading headfirst into an isolationist policy. Stepping back some good....retreating into our shell (closing all of our overseas bases and such)....bad
I do, however, agree with stepping out of the corrupt organization known as the UN.
just to re-instate
Quote:
WW2 wasn't caused by the League of Nations failing, WW2 was caused by draconian Treaty of Versailles that put such an economic hardship on the German people that it allowed a crazy man like Hitler to take over by merely promising to restore Germany to its former glory and getting out of that treaty. You promise starving broke people anything better and they will listen.
WW2 wouldn't have happened had to League of Nations and others negotiated a more fair treaty at the end of WW1. WW2 was largely caused by that treaty which allow a man like Hitler to gain power by promising the German people a better life then the rags, huts, and empty stomachs they had due to that treaty. The Wiemar Republic was a sham and set up to fail with that treaty, and the German people had one of the poorest and worst off economic times in history due to that.
Hitler was a nut job, I am glad he is gone, but he would have never got a chance to gain power if not for that Treaty of Versailles.
WW2 was NOT caused by isolationist policies..it was caused by the Draconian Treaty of Versailles. If as more fair treaty was reached, Hitler would have never gotten a chance and the war would have never occurred.
Saying isolationism caused WW2 is revisionist history garbage at its finest.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Yes what you are stating is true.....BUT.... we could have put so much to an end in it's infancy if we had gotten involved sooner. Much to many American's misconception...WW2 did not start in December of 1941. And our allies were BEGGING us to get involved for years in which time Hitler only became stronger and conquered more land. When Hitler was breaking many of the treaty ordinances, we said that it doesn't affect us, he is over there and we are over here. When he built his army, his navy , his air force, etc..and Great Britain, and others were clammoring for help...we stood by. He took Poland, and we stood by, He took France and we stood by. He bombed the snot out of England and we stood by.
Roosevelt wanted in...but could not do so....lucky for him some oil starved Japanese bombed a beautiful island on the other side of the world to give him the out he was looking for.
Just because you don't do anything does not mean that your INACTION does not have consequences....I mean if a house is on fire and you do not call the fire dept.......do you not have a part in the devestation that might have been prevented? Such as the fire spreading to other houses in its vicinity and then to other houses and so forth...
Last edited by PETE314; 02/22/10 02:51 PM.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180 |
Quote:
And our allies were BEGGING us to get involved for years in which time Hitler only became stronger and conquered more land.
And those same Allies had plenty of chances to nip things in the bud long, long before he invaded France.
There was the build up of military forces (it was against the treaty for them to have a military larger than 100,000 troops), hosting of air shows to test fighter designs, the open defiance of the treaty in '35 that created the Luftwaffe, the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, Hitler's open denouncment of the disarmament clauses of the Versailles Treaty, his denouncment of the Rhineland provisions of Treaty of Versailles (had the French responded here, they would have withdrawn as they were under orders to do so), the Anschluss of Austria, annexation of the Sudetanland, and finally the invasion of Poland.
In all actuality, you can lay much of the fault at the feet of Neville Chamberlain and our isolationist views.
Had we responded, or had Churchill had the power that he would later receive from the incompetent Chamberlain - WW2 would have likely been averted, or at least a smaller scale venture.
Of course, one could then easily postulate that the Nazi empire would have never been dismantled, thus their research programs never moved to the West. So, it is likely that they would have developed the nuclear bomb first, they would have gone to the moon first, and we all would have had little choice but to sit by and watched as a nuclear Nazi Germany took down the Soviet Union. The geopolitical landscape of today would be VASTLY different than it is today.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
The geopolitical landscape of today would be VASTLY different than it is today.
Harry Turtledove anyone? Love the novels that come out of thoughts like these
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Excellent points...however while we did prosper from gthe grabbing of the German Scientists and some of the Nazi technological advances....Had we intervened (and possibly done so properly) the Nazi party probably would have died off (If I remember the party was obscure and had no strength before all of the "Reich" Business...) And so much of those technologies that Hitler and the Nazi's funded may not have gotten that funding.
So many ways this could go....lol
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
So many ways this could go....lol
Hence the great stories!
This is mostly a general thought and not one directed at any one person. It's fun to think about, but ultimately moot. We can't know how the world would be different if "this" happened instead of "that." We can't take life-lessons from what may have happened
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
So many ways this could go....lol
interesting things is all through history of mankind, 1 event shifting one way or another, could have changed everything we know today. Which begs the question "If you had the ability to go back and change one major event in history, would you? and what event would that be?" What would the pros and cons of that change be to us today?
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
"If you had the ability to go back and change one major event in history, would you? and what event would that be?"
Either Elway gets sacked on the final play of "The Drive" or Jordan misses the shot over Eloh...
I wouldn't want to mess with anything bigger than that. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
Quote:
"If you had the ability to go back and change one major event in history, would you? and what event would that be?"
Either Elway gets sacked on the final play of "The Drive" or Jordan misses the shot over Eloh...
I wouldn't want to mess with anything bigger than that.
No way man! Those weren't even Championship games! How about Jose Mesa gets Charles Johnson to ground into a 6-4-3 double play to win the 1997 World Series???
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
"If you had the ability to go back and change one major event in history, would you? and what event would that be?"
Either Elway gets sacked on the final play of "The Drive" or Jordan misses the shot over Eloh...
I wouldn't want to mess with anything bigger than that.
Pros & cons:
So then Cleveland makes the Superbowl. Win or not, Art most likely never moves the team, and then we still have Belichic(not having learned from his mistakes then) and Art as an owner.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
As for the UN, lets see here, the UN was AGAINST the US invading Iraq..did it stop us? don't think so..therefore it failed...
One example of failure does not make an organization worthless. Here is a study that details many more successes at nation-building/peacekeeping than failures:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG304.sum.pdf
The WHO (branch of the UN) eradicated smallpox, and is making good headway against polio.
The World Food Programme feeds 100 million people a year.
You are right, the UN is not successful in every effort. But the successes outweigh the failures.
Quote:
Besides there DOES NOT need to be a forum for every country to have a say. Each country can maintain their own diplomatic relations among each other.
You say this, but then you provide the perfect example of countries not properly handling diplomatic relations: the Treaty of Versailles.
As for if UN sanctions were ever pointed at us; if it came to the point in this country where the government was attacking its own citizens with chemical weapons (Iraq in the 80's), or rounding up people into death camps (Bosnia-Serbia and surrounding regions), I think we would probably deserve the sanctions.
Besides all this, if we were to withdraw from the UN, while meanwhile the whole rest of the world is enrolled, what kind of message does that send? It sets up the US versus the rest of the world. We are already almost there by the unsanctioned invasion of Iraq and military bases in 135 countries. We cannot afford to isolate completely from the rest of the world; we are absolutely dependent on the outside world for both economic reasons and oil.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180 |
Quote:
You say this, but then you provide the perfect example of countries not properly handling diplomatic relations: the Treaty of Versailles.
It's a double irony, actually, as the Treaty of Versailles is also an exemplary example of the failure of an organized group of nations in the League of Nations, the U.N.'s predecessor.
The level of corruption within the U.N. certainly merits concerns toward our continued membership, but you are absolutely, 100%, correct that we cannot afford to have a completely isolationist stance. We are everywhere in this world because our economic interests are everywhere in this world.
It's funny, but people want us to have that isolationist stance, but they want us to help all of the countries we don't currently help. The complain that we worry about abuses in Iraq or Iran, but not in Darfur.... well... DUH! Darfur isn't economically important to us! Regardless of what spin you hear in the media or from politicians, we are NOT going into places like Iraq because of humanitarian reasons. Without CHEAP oil/energy, this country's way of life as we know it dies. The entire underlying basis for our prosperity is our ability to build, move and consume things with incredibly inexpensive energy. Put a giant freaking oil field in Darfur and we'll be the most interested in Darfurian welfare that you could ever imagine. I don't say that to slam us, as that may be how this sounds, just to state a reality. Never again can we so completely pull inward like we did between the World Wars.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
I agree with your post. I don't take offense to you characterizing us as acting in our own self-interest in places like Iraq; it is a reality. We are absolutely dependent on cheap oil. Quote:
It's a double irony, actually, as the Treaty of Versailles is also an exemplary example of the failure of an organized group of nations in the League of Nations, the U.N.'s predecessor.
I posted a similar argument earlier, but I went back and looked this up again. What I found was that the League was created by the treaty; it wasn't in existence during the one-sided, heavy-handed treaty negotiations. Thus the treaty isn't necessarily a failure of the League, instead I think it illustrates that had there been some kind of international body with some power mediating the treaty process, the treaty may not have come out so heavy handed (although there are no guarantees).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
One example of failure does not make an organization worthless. Here is a study that details many more successes at nation-building/peacekeeping than failures:
Don't have time to read the whole 28 page document right now.. but it doesn't look quite as glowing on successes as you make it sound... a couple lines did jump out at me though, like this one.
"The United Nations became adept at overseeing the disarmament and demobilization of WILLING parties."
I think it's safe to say that its a heck of a lot easier to "nation-build" with willing parties.. unfortunately they weren't willing in the Congo, Serbia, Bosnia, Cambodia, Iraq, Somalia... etc.
Quote:
The WHO (branch of the UN) eradicated smallpox, and is making good headway against polio.
The World Food Programme feeds 100 million people a year.
You are right, the UN is not successful in every effort. But the successes outweigh the failures.
There are some things that the UN is good at, as you mention, providing medical care and food among them.. what they are not good at is stopping genocide and stepping into extremely violent situations and they aren't very good at enforcing their own edicts either.. reference Iran and North Korea...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,180 |
Quote:
Thus the treaty isn't necessarily a failure of the League
I would disagree. Regardless of how the organization came about, it was the organizations job to enforce things -- and there were steps all along the way that they ignored. From '33 when Hitler came to power to '39 when he finally invaded Poland. They just sat idly by - much like the U.N. - and said "tsk tsk".
Would another international organization have come up with a less heavy handed treaty?
Given the times and the circumstances - I highly doubt it. A vast number of the nations in any other organization would be made up of the very nations that were in the LoN.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 587
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 587 |
He serves on the Joint Economic Committee and the Committee on Financial Services. He can't even do his own job correctly what makes any of you think he'll be a good President?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
I would disagree. Regardless of how the organization came about, it was the organizations job to enforce things -- and there were steps all along the way that they ignored. From '33 when Hitler came to power to '39 when he finally invaded Poland. They just sat idly by - much like the U.N. - and said "tsk tsk".
This is a good point. Notable is that the US wasn't involved. In fact I think it was only 50 or so nations. (The League had no teeth)
Quote:
Would another international organization have come up with a less heavy handed treaty?
This is exactly the problem, the treaty was largely dictated by England, France, and the US, without even bringing Germany to the table. There was no international input/mediation. However, you are probably right that at the time, those were the three biggest powers, so they probably would have dominated things anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
"The United Nations became adept at overseeing the disarmament and demobilization of WILLING parties."
I think it's safe to say that its a heck of a lot easier to "nation-build" with willing parties.. unfortunately they weren't willing in the Congo, Serbia, Bosnia, Cambodia, Iraq, Somalia... etc.
To be honest I didn't read the whole thing either. I just looked at a table (S3?) which outlined the missions. So the UN has had success with willing parties. But not necessarily with "hard cases." Isn't this still a valuable service? I don't feel that failure with hard cases is enough of a pretext to abandon the UN.
The original question I was answering was whether the US should participate in the UN. IMO, UN success with nation building with willing parties and humanitarian missions is more than enough reason to be a part of the UN.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
The original question I was answering was whether the US should participate in the UN. IMO, UN success with nation building with willing parties and humanitarian missions is more than enough reason to be a part of the UN.
Because we can't do these types of things on our own????
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
We can, but it's better for smaller nations to suggest things so the US taxpayers can bankroll them.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
From the link to the study I posted earlier... http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG304.sum.pdf Quote:
The cost of UN nation-building tends to look quite modest compared to
the cost of larger and more demanding U.S.-led operations. At present the
United States is spending some $4.5 billion per month to support its military
operations in Iraq. This is more than the United Nations spends to run all
17 of its current peacekeeping missions for a year. This is not to suggest that
the United Nations could perform the U.S. mission in Iraq more cheaply, or
perform it at all. It is to underline that there are 17 other places where the
United States will probably not have to intervene because UN troops are do-
ing so at a tiny fraction of the cost of U.S.-led operations.
I prefer to fund the UN at 400 million a year (a little over a dollar a year per person in the country), and NOT have to mess around with the places the UN is. The US shares the cost of these ventures at about 24% (we fund 24% of the UN budget). If we do it ourselves, we are on the hook 100% of the cost.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
we are on the hook 100% of the cost.
with 100% of the control and 100% of the decision to do so...
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
I just don't see it as good international policy to flip the UN the bird. While the UN doesn't cure all ills, the harm to our international reputation is not worth the 400 million (barely a dollar a person in this country) we would save by pulling out of the UN. Quote:
with 100% of the control and 100% of the decision to do so...
We already have this option, to go into places unilaterally. But it damages our international rep every time we do it. This is a big deal to me; a lot of the meddling we did outside of the UN during the Cold War is the reason for much of the backlash against the US in the last few decades; installing the Shah in Iran, rigging elections in Italy, the Bay of Pigs, getting involved in Afghanistan in the first place in the 1980's, backing Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war of the 80's, and on and on. You have to at least try to solve things in a transparent manner in the UN; then if it doesn't work you do what you have to. I'm no idealist, I know it doesn't work all of the time. That doesn't mean the forum isn't useful.
I guess I'm not really clear on where you stand. Are you for pulling out of the UN? If so, how has the UN hurt the US?
Last edited by tjs7; 02/24/10 10:49 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Well what I meant by my statement is that the UN could decide to go somewhere where where we might not approve and yet we would be backing that move with money. and we also would not have the control over certain area that we do go to whether we agree with being htere or not...
As for why I would like to pull out....that is a lengthy topic and I will have to come back to that when I have a bit more time....but I will say that corruption and hypocrisy are near the top of my list considering the UN.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Ron Paul CPAC Speech
|
|
![[Linked Image from netanimations.net]](http://netanimations.net/Moving-picture-dog-with-a-bone-animated-gif.gif)