[Politics] The United States needs to leave the corrupt UN!

[SUBMAN1]

Hezbolla in UN vehicle bribe UN to stay away while they kidnap Isreali soldiers. Then the UN covers it up and also becomes and accesory to kidnap and murder!

Nice.

-S

http://volokh.com/posts/1153523571.shtml

[SUBMAN1]

Another site to visit:

http://www.eyeontheun.org/

-S

[Yahoshua]

I'm not sure of the reliability of these sources, but what I've seen of the U.N.'s conduct in regions around the world (and on OUR soil). I am inclined to wonder if the U.N. has really fallen so low that they have become a terrorist organisation themselves (at least psychologically, wherein they promise help a country and then watch the innocents being massacred on television while they debate whether or not there really is a crisis).

[Spoon 11th]

The UN became a terrorist organization the day a few countries were granted a right to veto and the rest were not.

[STEED]

The U.N. is a corrupt organisation run by criminals for many years now, I just wish England would also get the heck out of the U.N. which stinks and plots to take over the world.:mad: :mad:

[joea]

The U.N. is a corrupt organisation run by criminals for many years now, I just wish England would also get the heck out of the U.N. which stinks and plots to take over the world.:mad: :mad:

Do ouy really belive that Steed? I thought you were a pretty level headed guy, still do, actually.

[STEED]

Hey joea, a refresher for you from early this year.;)


UN's Promise to 'Save The World'
In Return For Global Government
January 31 2006 (http://www.prisonplanet.com/index.html)

The London Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article341967.ece) reports,
The most potent threats to life on earth - global warming, health pandemics, poverty and armed conflict - could be ended by moves that would unlock $7 trillion - $7,000,000,000,000 (£3.9trn) - of previously untapped wealth, the United Nations claims today.
The price? An admission that the nation-state is an old-fashioned concept that has no role to play in a modern globalised world where financial markets have to be harnessed rather than simply condemned.
The message is simple, sacrifice your national sovereignty and we will save the world!
Using the threat of environmental catastrophe and the implementation of a world tax, the UN is coming back for another bite at the cherry, an end run around national sovereignty.

Why should we even for a second consider signing over our freedom and sovereignty to a body that has been embroiled in one scandal after another?
Were the UN attempting to save the world when they used a ship chartered for peacekeepers to bring children into East Timor (http://www.prisonplanet.com/un_ship_carried_child_prostitutes.html) to be exploited as prostitutes?
Were the UN attempting to save the world when they imposed sanctions on Iraq in 1990 (http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq17.html) that directly led to the deaths of a million Iraqis, 500,000 of them children? Were they attempting to solve problems of poverty, disease and suffering when they unleashed this living hell? A price (half a million dead kids) that was "worth paying" according to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright?

Were the UN attempting to save the world in 1994 when they withdrew their peacekeepers from Rwanda, an action that directly led (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/714025.stm) to the butchering of 800,000 people?
Were the UN attempting to save the world when they set up a program of prostitution and systematic rape (http://www.prisonplanet.com/un_troops_accused_of_systematic_rape_in_sierra_leo ne.html) throughout Sierra Leone's brutal 10 year civil war?
Were the UN attempting to save the world when pedophilia scandals (http://www.prisonplanet.com/un_finally_forced_to_probe_its_pedophillia_scandal .html) involving their personnel emerged from all over West Africa and the Balkans? Were their intentions noble when they fired the individuals responsible (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/general/2002/0626sex.htm) for blowing the whistle and trying to save the children?

[kiwi_2005]

Yeah kiwi here, backward as ever :lol: but hey aren't the UN suppose to be the good guys?:hmm:

[Safe-Keeper]

The UN became a terrorist organization the day a few countries were granted a right to veto and the rest were not.Would you care to explain what you mean by that? I assume you have done some research on this and thus are aware of why some countries cannot veto and some can, right? ...Right:-??

Fair enough if you have a gripe with the UN, and fine, dislike the veto system all you want, but to call them terrorists is a tad bit over-the-edge.

I just wish England would also get the heck out of the U.N. which stinks and plots to take over the world.First, calm down. Get in your medical cabinet and find a 25mg chill pill. Then, tell me why you think the UN is plotting to take over the world.

Actually, I wouldn't grieve too much if the USA did abandon the UN. It'd decrease the corruption significantly:p.

The US systematically vetoes every UN attempt at bringing Israel to justice (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html); they don't follow UN regulations and rules; and they pretty much hate the whole organisaiton. Until the US government gets its act together, it shall not be missed*.

And to use corruption as grounds for leaving the UN is very hypocritical in the US's case, what with the US being ruled by the exceedingly corrupt Republican Party (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=154065&highlight=corruption). And let's not get into the Guantanamo torture, ordered by the Bush Administration (http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/302/116/), the Downing Street Memos (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/) (more sources (http://www.google.no/search?hl=no&q=downing+street+memos&btnG=Google-s%C3%B8k&meta=)), or how the US has a huge debt (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) it's not doing much at all to counter.

But sure, let's bail poor old innocent USA out of the evil United Nations, lest they might be a bad influence.

http://www.eyeontheun.org/Couldn't you find a more biased and strange-minded site:roll:? "The Human Rights Council was Kofi Annan's flagship of UN reform. But only two weeks after it began, it took up where the discredited Human Rights Commission left off - Israel-bashing."

So they think it's a bad thing that when Israel breaks just about every rule on warfare and occuption there is to break, the UN condemns them? Isn't that what the UN is supposed to do? Or is there some rule that I'm not aware of that makes Israel immune to all attack? Please link to it if that is the case - thanks in advance.

EDIT:
First of all, it's worth mentioning that the UN isn't a nation. In a sense, "the UN" didn't pull out of Rwanda, the member countries did.

What I'm trying to say is that the Rwanda pull-out isn't a problem with the UN, but with the individual member nations not caring about the conflict.

Were the UN attempting to save the world when they used a ship chartered for peacekeepers to bring children into East Timor (http://www.prisonplanet.com/un_ship_carried_child_prostitutes.html) to be exploited as prostitutes?The link points to an unproven report. Speculation, no more.

Were the UN attempting to save the world when they set up a program of prostitution and systematic rape (http://www.prisonplanet.com/un_troops_accused_of_systematic_rape_in_sierra_leo ne.html) throughout Sierra Leone's brutal 10 year civil war?"Setting up a system of rape and torture" is pretty different from rogue peacekeepers raping and torturing. Nice try. Next time, don't link to an article that effectively disproves your statement:p.

*Just in case someone feels inclined to call me anti-American, I've lived in Houston for three years and found the Americans to be a great bunch. It's the government, namely the Republicans,I have something against.

[STEED]

I just wish England would also get the heck out of the U.N. which stinks and plots to take over the world.First, calm down. Get in your medical cabinet and find a 25mg chill pill. Then, tell me why you think the UN is plotting to take over the world.



Read the quote on my post.:roll:

PS I am calm.;)

[Safe-Keeper]

If you're referring to the abandoning of the nation-state, then that's not exactly "taking over the world".
PS I am calm.;)Good:p.

[CB..]

sooner or later there will a form of global government and a form of global planetery "nation" state...either it will arrive thru war or it will arrive thru negotiation..it's our choice...but it is inevitable in some shape or another...i reckon the U.N. is a very human organisation..wether thats a good thing or a bad one is besides the point as we can't all turn into goldfish...

[Spoon 11th]

Would you care to explain what you mean by that? I assume you have done some research on this and thus are aware of why some countries cannot veto and some can, right? ...Right:-??

Fair enough if you have a gripe with the UN, and fine, dislike the veto system all you want, but to call them terrorists is a tad bit over-the-edge.

No dude, I haven't done any research. I'm just babbling here for the fun of it. About the concept of veto: Too undemocratic to my taste. I used the definition 'terrorist organization' because the previous poster used that and it sounded fun. I don't have a gripe with the UN. There should be world government and only one language and one currency. And only lesser gods.

[August]

sooner or later there will a form of global government and a form of global planetery "nation" state...either it will arrive thru war or it will arrive thru negotiation..it's our choice...but it is inevitable in some shape or another...

Maybe you're right, but i hope i never live to see it.

[scandium]

The UN became a terrorist organization the day a few countries were granted a right to veto and the rest were not.Would you care to explain what you mean by that? I assume you have done some research on this and thus are aware of why some countries cannot veto and some can, right? ...Right:-??

Fair enough if you have a gripe with the UN, and fine, dislike the veto system all you want, but to call them terrorists is a tad bit over-the-edge.

I just wish England would also get the heck out of the U.N. which stinks and plots to take over the world.First, calm down. Get in your medical cabinet and find a 25mg chill pill. Then, tell me why you think the UN is plotting to take over the world.

Actually, I wouldn't grieve too much if the USA did abandon the UN. It'd decrease the corruption significantly:p.

The US systematically vetoes every UN attempt at bringing Israel to justice (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html); they don't follow UN regulations and rules; and they pretty much hate the whole organisaiton. Until the US government gets its act together, it shall not be missed*.

And to use corruption as grounds for leaving the UN is very hypocritical in the US's case, what with the US being ruled by the exceedingly corrupt Republican Party (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=154065&highlight=corruption). And let's not get into the Guantanamo torture, ordered by the Bush Administration (http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/302/116/), the Downing Street Memos (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/) (more sources (http://www.google.no/search?hl=no&q=downing+street+memos&btnG=Google-s%C3%B8k&meta=)), or how the US has a huge debt (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) it's not doing much at all to counter.

But sure, let's bail poor old innocent USA out of the evil United Nations, lest they might be a bad influence.

http://www.eyeontheun.org/Couldn't you find a more biased and strange-minded site:roll:? "The Human Rights Council was Kofi Annan's flagship of UN reform. But only two weeks after it began, it took up where the discredited Human Rights Commission left off - Israel-bashing."

So they think it's a bad thing that when Israel breaks just about every rule on warfare and occuption there is to break, the UN condemns them? Isn't that what the UN is supposed to do? Or is there some rule that I'm not aware of that makes Israel immune to all attack? Please link to it if that is the case - thanks in advance.

EDIT:
First of all, it's worth mentioning that the UN isn't a nation. In a sense, "the UN" didn't pull out of Rwanda, the member countries did.

What I'm trying to say is that the Rwanda pull-out isn't a problem with the UN, but with the individual member nations not caring about the conflict.

Were the UN attempting to save the world when they used a ship chartered for peacekeepers to bring children into East Timor (http://www.prisonplanet.com/un_ship_carried_child_prostitutes.html) to be exploited as prostitutes?The link points to an unproven report. Speculation, no more.

Were the UN attempting to save the world when they set up a program of prostitution and systematic rape (http://www.prisonplanet.com/un_troops_accused_of_systematic_rape_in_sierra_leo ne.html) throughout Sierra Leone's brutal 10 year civil war?"Setting up a system of rape and torture" is pretty different from rogue peacekeepers raping and torturing. Nice try. Next time, don't link to an article that effectively disproves your statement:p.

*Just in case someone feels inclined to call me anti-American, I've lived in Houston for three years and found the Americans to be a great bunch. It's the government, namely the Republicans,I have something against.

Well said, and you make some very good points here that are pretty hard to refute. :up:

Sadly, too many have trouble wrapping their mind around the fact that the UN is not the United States of America but the United Nations, and thus they have trouble understanding why the UN sometimes tries to act in the common interest of all 192 member nations rather than bending to the will of just 1.

But I suppose we ought to expect as much at a time when even the US President can't tell the difference:

I need to be able to move the right people to the right place at the right time to protect you, and I'm not going to accept a lousy bill out of the United Nations Senate. -- G.W. Bush
John Thune has got a common-sense vision for good forest policy. I look forward to working with him in the United Nations Senate to preserve these national heritages. -- G.W. Bush
Any time we've got any kind of inkling that somebody is thinking about doing something to an American and something to our homeland, you've just got to know we're moving on it, to protect the United Nations Constitution, and at the same time, we're protecting you. -- G.W. Bush

[SUBMAN1]

The UN became a terrorist organization the day a few countries were granted a right to veto and the rest were not.Would you care to explain what you mean by that? I assume you have done some research on this and thus are aware of why some countries cannot veto and some can, right? ...Right:-??

Fair enough if you have a gripe with the UN, and fine, dislike the veto system all you want, but to call them terrorists is a tad bit over-the-edge.

I just wish England would also get the heck out of the U.N. which stinks and plots to take over the world.First, calm down. Get in your medical cabinet and find a 25mg chill pill. Then, tell me why you think the UN is plotting to take over the world.

Actually, I wouldn't grieve too much if the USA did abandon the UN. It'd decrease the corruption significantly:p.

The US systematically vetoes every UN attempt at bringing Israel to justice (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html); they don't follow UN regulations and rules; and they pretty much hate the whole organisaiton. Until the US government gets its act together, it shall not be missed*.

And to use corruption as grounds for leaving the UN is very hypocritical in the US's case, what with the US being ruled by the exceedingly corrupt Republican Party (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=154065&highlight=corruption). And let's not get into the Guantanamo torture, ordered by the Bush Administration (http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/302/116/), the Downing Street Memos (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/) (more sources (http://www.google.no/search?hl=no&q=downing+street+memos&btnG=Google-s%C3%B8k&meta=)), or how the US has a huge debt (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) it's not doing much at all to counter.

But sure, let's bail poor old innocent USA out of the evil United Nations, lest they might be a bad influence.

http://www.eyeontheun.org/Couldn't you find a more biased and strange-minded site:roll:? "The Human Rights Council was Kofi Annan's flagship of UN reform. But only two weeks after it began, it took up where the discredited Human Rights Commission left off - Israel-bashing."

So they think it's a bad thing that when Israel breaks just about every rule on warfare and occuption there is to break, the UN condemns them? Isn't that what the UN is supposed to do? Or is there some rule that I'm not aware of that makes Israel immune to all attack? Please link to it if that is the case - thanks in advance.

EDIT:
First of all, it's worth mentioning that the UN isn't a nation. In a sense, "the UN" didn't pull out of Rwanda, the member countries did.

What I'm trying to say is that the Rwanda pull-out isn't a problem with the UN, but with the individual member nations not caring about the conflict.

Were the UN attempting to save the world when they used a ship chartered for peacekeepers to bring children into East Timor (http://www.prisonplanet.com/un_ship_carried_child_prostitutes.html) to be exploited as prostitutes?The link points to an unproven report. Speculation, no more.

Were the UN attempting to save the world when they set up a program of prostitution and systematic rape (http://www.prisonplanet.com/un_troops_accused_of_systematic_rape_in_sierra_leo ne.html) throughout Sierra Leone's brutal 10 year civil war?"Setting up a system of rape and torture" is pretty different from rogue peacekeepers raping and torturing. Nice try. Next time, don't link to an article that effectively disproves your statement:p.

*Just in case someone feels inclined to call me anti-American, I've lived in Houston for three years and found the Americans to be a great bunch. It's the government, namely the Republicans,I have something against.

Well said, and you make some very good points here that are pretty hard to refute. :up:

Sadly, too many have trouble wrapping their mind around the fact that the UN is not the United States of America but the United Nations, and thus they have trouble understanding why the UN sometimes tries to act in the common interest of all 192 member nations rather than bending to the will of just 1.

But I suppose we ought to expect as much at a time when even the US President can't tell the difference:

I need to be able to move the right people to the right place at the right time to protect you, and I'm not going to accept a lousy bill out of the United Nations Senate. -- G.W. Bush
John Thune has got a common-sense vision for good forest policy. I look forward to working with him in the United Nations Senate to preserve these national heritages. -- G.W. Bush
Any time we've got any kind of inkling that somebody is thinking about doing something to an American and something to our homeland, you've just got to know we're moving on it, to protect the United Nations Constitution, and at the same time, we're protecting you. -- G.W. Bush

Oh! Imagine that? Scandium turned this into an anti bush thing already!

-S

[SUBMAN1]

I'm not sure of the reliability of these sources, but what I've seen of the U.N.'s conduct in regions around the world (and on OUR soil). I am inclined to wonder if the U.N. has really fallen so low that they have become a terrorist organisation themselves (at least psychologically, wherein they promise help a country and then watch the innocents being massacred on television while they debate whether or not there really is a crisis).

The reliability can't be disputed since it is derived from multiple independant media outlets and media stories. It is not created by the web site owners. The watch on the UN should turn your stomach a bit.

-S

[scandium]

Oh! Imagine that? Scandium turned this into an anti bush thing already!

-S
How is pointing out that your President is a halfwit "anti bush"? Oh, never mind. :lol:

[SUBMAN1]

Oh! Imagine that? Scandium turned this into an anti bush thing already!

-S
How is pointing out that your President is a halfwit "anti bush"? Oh, never mind. :lol:

My point is made.

-S

[CB..]

sooner or later there will a form of global government and a form of global planetery "nation" state...either it will arrive thru war or it will arrive thru negotiation..it's our choice...but it is inevitable in some shape or another...

Maybe you're right, but i hope i never live to see it.
reckon it will be a good few centurys before it happens for real..just imagine the difficulty negotiating the world's global religious tolerances in the current climate and your jaw drops thru the floor trying to concieve of the various factions even agree-ing to meet and discuss the subject..lol..yet it's exactly that sort of un-imaginable discussion that must be made feasible in order for some sort of progress to be made...no one country could be trusted to handle this role..it has to be a global coalition
same with all the other issues were stuck with..

[scandium]

Oh! Imagine that? Scandium turned this into an anti bush thing already!

-S
How is pointing out that your President is a halfwit "anti bush"? Oh, never mind. :lol:
My point is made.

-S

Surely it hasn't taken you this long to figure that out? By the way, in case this is news to you: 2/3rds of Americans and 99% of the rest of the world isn't overly fond of him either. In fact, the three words most often words used to describe him, just in the US, are "moron", "idiot", and "liar" - elsewhere we are even more colourful in our descriptions. :yep:

[August]

reckon it will be a good few centurys before it happens for real..just imagine the difficulty negotiating the world's global religious tolerances in the current climate and your jaw drops thru the floor trying to concieve of the various factions even agree-ing to meet and discuss the subject..lol..yet it's exactly that sort of un-imaginable discussion that must be made feasible in order for some sort of progress to be made...no one country could be trusted to handle this role..it has to be a global coalition
same with all the other issues were stuck with..
:yep:

[SUBMAN1]

Oh! Imagine that? Scandium turned this into an anti bush thing already!

-S
How is pointing out that your President is a halfwit "anti bush"? Oh, never mind. :lol:
My point is made.

-S
Surely it hasn't taken you this long to figure that out? By the way, in case this is news to you: 2/3rds of Americans and 99% of the rest of the world isn't overly fond of him either. In fact, the three words most often words used to describe him, just in the US, are "moron", "idiot", and "liar" - elsewhere we are even more colourful in our descriptions. :yep:

Incorrect. There is a difference between thinking he is doing a good job vs outright disliking him. Right now, is approval rating is on a roller coaster which is similar to every other pres that has ever conducted a war.

But you wouldn't know this because you seem to have such rage for the US in general and typing what I am typing here is probably a waste of time since you aren't intelligent enough to understand it! :p

When you get out of highschool, maybe we can have a more logical and meaningful conversation.

-S

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

the man can't even pronounce the word nuclear properly... even his wife made that point clear...

he's on his way to making Nixon look like Captain America...

sorry Mr. President... i call em as i see em.. and i see em the way they are...

--Mike

[scandium]

Incorrect. There is a difference between thinking he is doing a good job vs outright disliking him. Right now, is approval rating is on a roller coaster which is similar to every other pres that has ever conducted a war.

But you wouldn't know this because you seem to have such rage for the US in general and typing what I am typing here is probably a waste of time since you aren't intelligent enough to understand it! :p

When you get out of highschool, maybe we can have a more logical and meaningful conversation.

-S
You must be trying top our last discussion where you called me a "conspiracy nut", among other things eh? Ironic, given the sources you used for the first post in this thread. :lol:

Anyway, all I have to say to this latest rant of yours is that no, I don't hate the U.S., and that based on the above if I were looking for "logical and meaningful conversation" I wouldn't put you at the top of the list ;)

[SUBMAN1]

Incorrect. There is a difference between thinking he is doing a good job vs outright disliking him. Right now, is approval rating is on a roller coaster which is similar to every other pres that has ever conducted a war.

But you wouldn't know this because you seem to have such rage for the US in general and typing what I am typing here is probably a waste of time since you aren't intelligent enough to understand it! :p

When you get out of highschool, maybe we can have a more logical and meaningful conversation.

-S
You must be trying top our last discussion where you called me a "conspiracy nut", among other things eh? Ironic, given the sources you used for the first post in this thread. :lol:

Anyway, all I have to say to this latest rant of yours is that no, I don't hate the U.S., and that based on the above if I were looking for "logical and meaningful conversation" I wouldn't put you at the top of the list ;)

Conspiracy nut? Someone else did that probably. Now that I think about it, this is another one of those times where you twist stories to suit your own purpose. Again. Another post that is filled with lies and deceat. And all your comments you keep making from Bush to America, you don't need to say you don't like America, it is rather blatenly obvious. So, hopefully you have found another American to hate. Look at the bright side, at least in 40 years, you will have double the size of Americans to hate! :up:

-S

PS. I don't think you have ever said an intelligable thing on this board, which is why I don't bother wasting any thought processes on the crap you spew out. Your black and whiteness shows your age, which is why I give you another 20 years before you are able to see grey - hence, you'll be wise enough to have that conversation by then if you don't cave in on yourself!

PPS. I've never seen such an anti bush hater as you - you sure Bush doesn't have a restraining order against you? Just curious. The way you pull quotes shows it must consume you deep inside - almost phycho like. Scary.

PPPS. Ratch it up another notch! :sunny:

[Sea Demon]

Actually, I wouldn't grieve too much if the USA did abandon the UN. It'd decrease the corruption significantly:p.

The US systematically vetoes every UN attempt at bringing Israel to justice (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html); they don't follow UN regulations and rules; and they pretty much hate the whole organisaiton. Until the US government gets its act together, it shall not be missed*.

And to use corruption as grounds for leaving the UN is very hypocritical in the US's case, what with the US being ruled by the exceedingly corrupt Republican Party (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=154065&highlight=corruption). And let's not get into the Guantanamo torture, ordered by the Bush Administration (http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/302/116/), the Downing Street Memos (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/) (more sources (http://www.google.no/search?hl=no&q=downing+street+memos&btnG=Google-s%C3%B8k&meta=)), or how the US has a huge debt (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) it's not doing much at all to counter.

No. If the USA did leave the UN, the corruption would still be ever present. The oil for food program pretty much lined the pockets of UN officials. This money was supposed to be used to feed, clothe, and give medical supplies to Iraq's people. The USA had nothing to do with any of that. UN corruption is pretty deep without American involvement.

And the UN is virtually nothing without US involvement financially. Remember the tsunami relief disaster? The UN came to the USA with hat in hand begging for money and food aid. The US taxpayers came through. It's funny how those bags of rice had a big label on them that said "United Nations" when it was only possible due to US taxpayers. Not just the food, but it was delivered by US Navy ships. Do you even know how much of the UN budget the US ponies up for? It's quite significant.

But sure, let's bail poor old innocent USA out of the evil United Nations, lest they might be a bad influence.

Yes, let's do it. And the UN itself will cease to exist.:D That is unless the other remaining members make up the difference financially. And we're talking alot of money here. But one other thing....how would this new UN enforce it's own resolutions without US military power?:hmm: I'll tell you...they couldn't. Basically, this new America-free UN would be worthless. Well, more worthless than it is now.

So they think it's a bad thing that when Israel breaks just about every rule on warfare and occuption there is to break, the UN condemns them? Isn't that what the UN is supposed to do? Or is there some rule that I'm not aware of that makes Israel immune to all attack? Please link to it if that is the case - thanks in advance.

And what type of warfare rules are the opposing side breaking. Unlawful combatants. Do you think it's acceptable to allow 500-1000 rockets flying into Israeli towns, villages, shopping centers, and schools on a daily basis? What about the kidnapping of lawful combatants by terrorists? What does the UN say about those things? I'll tell you....nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip. And just when Israel is in the process of eliminating these terrorists, the UN always steps in to save the terrorists. It's been happening for as long as I've been alive. The UN has never been a body that creates a lasting peace. It's a body that creates a fragile stalemate, and gives dangerous regimes and terrorist groups the time to regroup and re-arm. I can't believe people are still fooled into believing that the UN is a body that creates the conditions of peace.

Just in case someone feels inclined to call me anti-American, I've lived in Houston for three years and found the Americans to be a great bunch. It's the government, namely the Republicans,I have something against.


The people are currently electing Republican leadership. And it doesn't look like that's going to change in the short term. ;)

[Skybird]

When I was young, naive and at school, I hailed the UN. sicne then, every year brought more disillusions. Today I consider it to be a forum of criminals, tyrants and dictators, joined by a powerful minority using it opportunistically for their own interests. One thing the UN is not: the idealistic body it wants to be by it's charta. And more and more it also runs truly Islamic interests.

As for CB mentioning a world government, I rule that out for the next twothousand years or so, if "government" means a gremium supported and wanted by the people, all cultures, all religions. Possible that there will be a world dictatorship, and tyranny of bureaucrats, the brutal ruling of an economical cartel, but a freely elected world government? Not in this world, not in our time, not with these civilzations, not with this human race. And honestly, after the Völkerbund and the UN, my appetit for such a world gremium is fed up anyway. and imagining what ammount of power would be accumulated in the hands of how few people, and how big a bureaucratic administration would follow without doubt - all that makes me frightening. It's no utopia for me, but an anti-utopia.

And more UN troops in southern Lebanon now - a regular army already finds it difficult to fight against a terror group that uses urban guerilla tactics, and terror. By what an ammount would that be an even bigger chalölenge for a wild bunch of idealistic multinationals whose equipment, language, sympathies and training already is different? Note that the Israelis today only speak of NATO troops there, not UN troops.

Can NATO afford to want to be in Lebanon? It means to invite peaceful european public to face the grim face of war vis a vis. do we really want to share a border to an acrtive warzone? Do we reAlly want to increase spread the umbrella of nato beyond it's original operatin zone - the norethern Atlantic and Western Europe and North America? I already oppose the attempts to see NATO respnsible for Afghnaistan, and defend Europe at the Hindukush. And would such a commando really be willing to fight against Hezbollah (becasue that will be neede, bitter bloody fighting, they will not give uip all arms peacefully) if one considers how massively Israel is being criticised for exactly doing it now? Will such a NTO force then seek softer forms of comabt - which will guarantee that they have even smaller chances to acchieve what the Israelis currently are trying? i think a NATO force in Lebanon is not in our interest, and not in Israel'AS interest as well, for it only limits it military options, and probaly will only be standing in it's way. Maybe diplomatic pressure will force them to accept hat, but they will not like it, we will not like, Hezbollah will not like it - and the Lebanese probably will only like it as long as that force does not engage Hezbollah. My vote goes to supporting Israel in taking out Hezbollah. No NATO force in southern Lebanon. And hell, please no foolish UN corps again. the papertigers that are already there are helpless enough already. No need to increase their helplessness and vulnerability. there is a good army in place to take on Hezbollah. Why sending a second one that only is inferior to both Israel and Hezbollah? Also, the historxy of UN shows that no UN troops ever had build bridges between ethnic groups that have hated each other for long. The bogged down balkan mission only is the latest example.

[Iceman]

Oh! Imagine that? Scandium turned this into an anti bush thing already!

-S
How is pointing out that your President is a halfwit "anti bush"? Oh, never mind. :lol:
My point is made.

-S

Surely it hasn't taken you this long to figure that out? By the way, in case this is news to you: 2/3rds of Americans and 99% of the rest of the world isn't overly fond of him either. In fact, the three words most often words used to describe him, just in the US, are "moron", "idiot", and "liar" - elsewhere we are even more colourful in our descriptions. :yep:

This is your opinion which is like my...well you use your imagination. Coming from someone who in his sig quotes Nietzsche...in the most spineless quote I think I have ever heard..."your way, my way, and no right way"?...are you serious?

This is why you..Scandium and Mike Red October see eye to eye in that you don't stand for anything.It is ok to think that innocent murder by people who strap bombs to themselves is wrong. It is ok to think one should not have to live in fear of such people. And it is Right to take action to prevent such events Before they happen. It's ok to take a position.

P.S. fix the spelling of Nietzsche in your sig it is spelled incorrect Scandalous.

Don't make me pull out the Bible quotes Skybird will cringe.

[Skybird]

The context of that Nietzsche quote is harmless. But I wonder if Scandium really knows where it is from? Quoting-forums are flooded with exactly this one sentence by Nietzsche. Source and context are almost never given. It's "en vogue" for most, nothing more.

Anyone who knows Nietzsche's work, at least his major works, and the Zarathustra, knows that his general work by far was not so harmless and tame as that quote seem to imply. But I am not going to debate about Nietzsche. I love the first two books of Zarathustra too much as that I would abuse them for that. Only one thing is certain: Nietzsche was far from relativizing all and everything and making no difefrences between worthy and unworthy. Far the oppopsite: he found very tough, most confrotning words for attacking people who do so. Especially when it was in context with religion in general and christianity in special. I knew two people who did no more speak with me becasue I had Nietzsche's "The Anti-Christ" and "Dawning of the Idols" on my shelves. :lol: :lol:

[scandium]

Conspiracy nut? Someone else did that probably. Now that I think about it, this is another one of those times where you twist stories to suit your own purpose. Again. Another post that is filled with lies and deceat. And all your comments you keep making from Bush to America, you don't need to say you don't like America, it is rather blatenly obvious. So, hopefully you have found another American to hate. Look at the bright side, at least in 40 years, you will have double the size of Americans to hate! :up:

-S

PS. I don't think you have ever said an intelligable thing on this board, which is why I don't bother wasting any thought processes on the crap you spew out. Your black and whiteness shows your age, which is why I give you another 20 years before you are able to see grey - hence, you'll be wise enough to have that conversation by then if you don't cave in on yourself!

PPS. I've never seen such an anti bush hater as you - you sure Bush doesn't have a restraining order against you? Just curious. The way you pull quotes shows it must consume you deep inside - almost phycho like. Scary.

PPPS. Ratch it up another notch! :sunny:

:zzz:

[scandium]

This is your opinion which is like my...well you use your imagination. Coming from someone who in his sig quotes Nietzsche...in the most spineless quote I think I have ever heard..."your way, my way, and no right way"?...are you serious?

This is why you..Scandium and Mike Red October see eye to eye in that you don't stand for anything.It is ok to think that innocent murder by people who strap bombs to themselves is wrong. It is ok to think one should not have to live in fear of such people. And it is Right to take action to prevent such events Before they happen. It's ok to take a position.
Another comedian. :lol:

I assume that second last sentence is a defence to your opinion that we should pre-emptively nuke Iran and Syria... and you lecture me on morality and what is "right"?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume this entire post is your idea of a joke. ;)

[P_Funk]

Wow. I like the irony of calling for the US to leave the UN because it is corrupt and ineffective... Last time I checked the US was part of the reason the UN is totally incapable of making any real progress. VETO VETO VETO! Anything that looks like it might be bad for American concerns even if it might help the world is vetoed. I read that someone above mentioned the sanctions against Iraq which lead to the deaths of millions as a reason the UN is bad. Didn't the US support that resolution? And isn't the US stopping the UN from taking any decisive ground on the current Israeli actions in Gaza and Lebanon? Part of the reason the UN is troubled is because of the US. The US has never been concerned with the mission of the UN and since the support of the major superpowers of the day is required for an effective world government then until the US and Russia and China and Britain and anyone else who is compounding the dysfunctions within the UN lighten up there is no hope. But don't for a minute, anyone, try to accuse the UN of being an evil corrupt organization without acknowledging their own country's part in this. The US has hampered the UN since the beginning. And I emphasize the US only because they are the worst offenders. Many of the other major powers have done their part in bringing personal national concerns into the UN and corrupting the process.

No Americans on this board should pretend to be so damned righteous. Nor should anyone else from a country with a permanent place on the security counsel and with a permanent veto. If the UN is corrupt and ineffective it is only because oif the major powers. They are the ones who propel it forward and they are the ones who can unmake it through their selfish mismanagement.

[Spoon 11th]

how would this new UN enforce it's own resolutions without US military power?With the military power of Europe, Russia, India, China, Iran, Zimbabwe, Uruguay...??

ps. The US constitutes only 22 percent of the UN budget. (Compare to Japan: ~20%) and US debt to UN is over $1.3 billion.

pps. Did you know that american NGO's and private persons donated twice as much money to the tsunami relief than US government?

[SUBMAN1]

Conspiracy nut? Someone else did that probably. Now that I think about it, this is another one of those times where you twist stories to suit your own purpose. Again. Another post that is filled with lies and deceat. And all your comments you keep making from Bush to America, you don't need to say you don't like America, it is rather blatenly obvious. So, hopefully you have found another American to hate. Look at the bright side, at least in 40 years, you will have double the size of Americans to hate! :up:

-S

PS. I don't think you have ever said an intelligable thing on this board, which is why I don't bother wasting any thought processes on the crap you spew out. Your black and whiteness shows your age, which is why I give you another 20 years before you are able to see grey - hence, you'll be wise enough to have that conversation by then if you don't cave in on yourself!

PPS. I've never seen such an anti bush hater as you - you sure Bush doesn't have a restraining order against you? Just curious. The way you pull quotes shows it must consume you deep inside - almost phycho like. Scary.

PPPS. Ratch it up another notch! :sunny:
:zzz:

Finally! We see eye to eye! Knew you'd come around sometime. :up:

-S

[SUBMAN1]

how would this new UN enforce it's own resolutions without US military power?With the military power of Europe, Russia, India, China, Iran, Zimbabwe, Uruguay...??

ps. The US constitutes only 22 percent of the UN budget. (Compare to Japan: ~20%) and US debt to UN is over $1.3 billion.

pps. Did you know that american NGO's and private persons donated twice as much money to the tsunami relief than US government?

Perfect. I'd say lets pull out then. Budget vs. troops on the ground are two different animals too. When an organization starts recognizing Hezbolah as an entity that requires the protection through its policies, its all over already.

-S

[CB..]

As for CB mentioning a world government, I rule that out for the next two thousand years or so, if "government" means a gremium supported and wanted by the people, all cultures, all religions. Possible that there will be a world dictatorship, and tyranny of bureaucrats, the brutal ruling of an economical cartel, but a freely elected world government?

and what are the alternatives? there are none..nada zilch.. one way or another there is no choice..anything we do in the mean time is just farting in the wind

[SUBMAN1]

Wow. I like the irony of calling for the US to leave the UN because it is corrupt and ineffective... Last time I checked the US was part of the reason the UN is totally incapable of making any real progress. VETO VETO VETO! Anything that looks like it might be bad for American concerns even if it might help the world is vetoed. I read that someone above mentioned the sanctions against Iraq which lead to the deaths of millions as a reason the UN is bad. Didn't the US support that resolution? And isn't the US stopping the UN from taking any decisive ground on the current Israeli actions in Gaza and Lebanon? Part of the reason the UN is troubled is because of the US. The US has never been concerned with the mission of the UN and since the support of the major superpowers of the day is required for an effective world government then until the US and Russia and China and Britain and anyone else who is compounding the dysfunctions within the UN lighten up there is no hope. But don't for a minute, anyone, try to accuse the UN of being an evil corrupt organization without acknowledging their own country's part in this. The US has hampered the UN since the beginning. And I emphasize the US only because they are the worst offenders. Many of the other major powers have done their part in bringing personal national concerns into the UN and corrupting the process.

No Americans on this board should pretend to be so damned righteous. Nor should anyone else from a country with a permanent place on the security counsel and with a permanent veto. If the UN is corrupt and ineffective it is only because oif the major powers. They are the ones who propel it forward and they are the ones who can unmake it through their selfish mismanagement.

US Veto's a lot, no doubt. Probably in resolutions that are crafted in direct response to some US policy or doing. Of course, the US is not the top dog for Veto's though. Russia holds that near and dear. Last count - US had used about 80 veto's since the UN inception. Russia was at 122.

-S

[bradclark1]

Sadly, too many have trouble wrapping their mind around the fact that the UN is not the United States of America but the United Nations, and thus they have trouble understanding why the UN sometimes tries to act in the common interest of all 192 member nations rather than bending to the will of just 1.

It could have something to do about whenever something needs doing it seems that everyone says "The U.S. should ..............insert whatever here...... You keep on being made the leader it's only natural that one ends up assuming you are the leader.
If I had my way we wouldn't be part of the U.N. Then what happens? The US. would be bitched at for leaving.
The U.N. is an ineffective and corrupt organization in which only five(?) countries have the real power. It's broke and unfixable.
As far as Israel. Without the U.S. backing them they would have already ceased to exist. The U.N. sure wouldn't do anything to stop it.
Half of the country of Lebanon is owned by a terrorist organiztion. What is Israel supposed to do about them? Send Hezbolla letters asking them to be nice? They use civilians as shields. They hide their organization within civilians. The civilians let themselves be shields, they pay the price for it. Cold but true.

[tycho102]

Anything that looks like it might be bad for American concerns even if it might help the world is vetoed.

Yup. And we're going to keep doing it too, whether our pacifists wet their pants or not. Americans come first. <insert joke about women coming second, or sometimes not at all, in Japan>

Every other nation does the exact same thing. I support "evolving international standards", just like the rest of 'em do. My evolving standards include not having North Korea on the Human Rights Council, and not having convicted felons responsible for investigating their own embezzlement case.

I want us completely out of the UN. I don't even want the damn organization hosted on American land, much less our brave women and men wearing serving under it's command. The UN has become an economic forum, just like the League of Nations had become an economic forum, and it's amazing to see the crooked deals being made in that forum.

[Iceman]

This is your opinion which is like my...well you use your imagination. Coming from someone who in his sig quotes Nietzsche...in the most spineless quote I think I have ever heard..."your way, my way, and no right way"?...are you serious?

This is why you..Scandium and Mike Red October see eye to eye in that you don't stand for anything.It is ok to think that innocent murder by people who strap bombs to themselves is wrong. It is ok to think one should not have to live in fear of such people. And it is Right to take action to prevent such events Before they happen. It's ok to take a position.
Another comedian. :lol:

I assume that second last sentence is a defence to your opinion that we should pre-emptively nuke Iran and Syria... and you lecture me on morality and what is "right"?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume this entire post is your idea of a joke. ;)

I'm not lecturing anyone on doing anything you can do what you want same as everyone else but every deed has a price and I do not condone violence in any form believe it or not. I just understand the positions of others and can look at the sky same as you...some say rain is coming some think it will blow over but all you can really do is wait and prepare maybe if your smart.

And yes I am human and poke fun at you and Skybird but I respect your opinions.I knew the Nietzsche comment would rile Sky up. :)

[P_Funk]

Anything that looks like it might be bad for American concerns even if it might help the world is vetoed.
Yup. And we're going to keep doing it too, whether our pacifists wet their pants or not. Americans come first.
And that's why things never change. But one day the US won't be the glorious super power it is today and maybe then Americans will understand why the world holds them now in such low regard. Its easy to justify your actions when you're on topof the world and not accountable to anyone. Just wait until China and India and Japan call in America's excessive debt and plunge the economy into chaos. Then you'll understand that being selfish to the last has its consequences.

[Sea Demon]

how would this new UN enforce it's own resolutions without US military power?With the military power of Europe, Russia, India, China, Iran, Zimbabwe, Uruguay...??

ps. The US constitutes only 22 percent of the UN budget. (Compare to Japan: ~20%) and US debt to UN is over $1.3 billion.

pps. Did you know that american NGO's and private persons donated twice as much money to the tsunami relief than US government?

None of those powers have the sealift or airlift capabilities to respond to any global crisis with any real muscle. And then sustaining it logistically is another ballgame. The Eurpoeans are the most likely to be able to build this, but I know they would begrudge it. It's likely that if the US dumped the UN, the bulk of Europe would follow.

Thanks for citing the actual statistical number. But the UN or any other such body cannot exist or cope with a sudden drop of near 1/4 of it's budget. They're already stretched. I don't think they would have the capability to financially realign. And like I said, with the USA out of it, most of Europe, Australia, and Japan would probably follow us out the door. And take their money with them as well.

Yes. I did know about where the money for the tsunami relief came from. BTW, private persons in the USA also are taxpayers. And not only did I dip into my own finances for a private donation, but my tax dolloars went to the effort. Still, most of the money and materials came from the USA, and the pathetic UN tried to take the credit. That's the point.

[Sea Demon]

Just wait until China and India and Japan call in America's excessive debt and plunge the economy into chaos. Then you'll understand that being selfish to the last has its consequences.

It'll never happen. Their own economic growth is totally dependant on trade benefits with the West, in particular with the U.S. consumer market. They do this, they sink their own ships. And the USA is in a better position to economically recover.

[NEON DEON]

Anything that looks like it might be bad for American concerns even if it might help the world is vetoed.
Yup. And we're going to keep doing it too, whether our pacifists wet their pants or not. Americans come first.
And that's why things never change. But one day the US won't be the glorious super power it is today and maybe then Americans will understand why the world holds them now in such low regard. Its easy to justify your actions when you're on topof the world and not accountable to anyone. Just wait until China and India and Japan call in America's excessive debt and plunge the economy into chaos. Then you'll understand that being selfish to the last has its consequences.

And Japan is going to want to destroy its biggest market for goods
because??????????????????????????

OOPS! Sea Deamon beat me to it.

[P_Funk]

Just wait until China and India and Japan call in America's excessive debt and plunge the economy into chaos. Then you'll understand that being selfish to the last has its consequences.
It'll never happen. Their own economic growth is totally dependant on trade benefits with the West, in particular with the U.S. consumer market. They do this, they sink their own ships. And the USA is in a better position to economically recover. For the time being. But if you know anything about economics and history nothing lasts forever. One day China and Japan and India will reach a point where economic benefits from US trade deficits will not be worth it. Economics is a very complicated subject and theres a reason it has one the highest drop out rates in University. But the point is that the American economy is being supported by huge loans of money from India, China and Japan. Anyone who understands bankrupcy and credit card debt need only inflate that to nation state level and you get the same idea. The loans get paid back with interest and eventually if it looks as if the debtor won't be able to pay off the entire sum then they will forclose or just stop giving the US money. When the money stops flowing in it ends up being like a teenage girl who has been living off her parents and has been cut off. Except the entire economy of the US has been living off this girl. Thats a bit of a simplistic expanation but it will suffice.

And besides, do you actually believe that the US will be the largest economic power on the face of the earth forever? It just ain't happening mate.

[Sea Demon]

And besides, do you actually believe that the US will be the largest economic power on the face of the earth forever? It just ain't happening mate.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sour grapes. If this happens, they go down also. I've been listening to this type of drivel for 25 years now. Fact is, China and India have alot of mouths to feed and alot of infrastructure to support. And they're own economies aren't exactly self-sustaining. China would go into a banking crisis without Western trade dollars and may do so at any rate. And it doesn't look to be changing anytime soon.

This scenario/theory has been pushed by socialists and American capitalist haters for a couple of decades. Wishing things so, doesn't make them so.

[Onkel Neal]

And besides, do you actually believe that the US will be the largest economic power on the face of the earth forever? It just ain't happening mate.

No, not forever, but as long as we stick to our basic American principles of hard work, free enterprise, and self-reliance and avoid turning into a nanny state, we'll do alright :) If some country passes the USA with greater GDP, who cares, more power to them. It's not a winner-take-all situation.

[P_Funk]

And besides, do you actually believe that the US will be the largest economic power on the face of the earth forever? It just ain't happening mate.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sour grapes. If this happens, they go down also. I've been listening to this type of drivel for 25 years now. Fact is, China and India have alot of mouths to feed and alot of infrastructure to support. And they're own economies aren't exactly self-sustaining. China would go into a banking crisis without Western trade dollars and may do so at any rate. And it doesn't look to be changing anytime soon.

This scenario/theory has been pushed by socialists and American capitalist haters for a couple of decades. Wishing things so, doesn't make them so. That's right. 25 years a literal eternity. The Roman Empire lasted for a few hundred years, the British Empire even fewer. Now the US is in massive debt, spending more money on the military than ever before and is alienating its allies and creating new enemies and is also simultaneously feeding the economic and industrial growth of its soon to be rivals. 25 years is nothing. The decline of the American Empire is occuring right now, its slow and sometimes not as easily noticed but ask any economist and they'll tell you that the US is burying itself, all but slowly. Sure the US will probably be the king for most of my life but its gonna happen. And yeah India and China have alot of mouths to feed, thats why they are gonna take over; they have the potential, and are taking advantage of it, to create the largest economic industrial nations of our time. The sheer number of people in CHina and India means that they have the largest potential labour force on the face of the earth. Have you not noticed that corporations keep outsourcing to India and CHina? How the trade deficit with China makes the US poorer and China richer? The infrastructure of both India and China are becoming more self sufficient that eventually they wont need the US for R&D. The US is giving these two nations the boost they need to become economic powers but eventually they wont need the US.

Does anyone remember how the US became the world's economic superpower? It started during WW1. Britain was the world's greatest economic power (along with everything else). However the huge financial cost of WW1 caused every Allied nation in Europe to borrow heavily from the US to fund it's war effort. At the end of the war everyone owed huge amounts of money to the US and the financial capital of the world moved from London to New York. What does this have to do with today? Debt.

The US is in massive debt to Asian-Pacific nations. Britain was in massive debt to the US. If you guys really think you understand Capitalism and the blasted free-market then you should understand that being the debtor is a bad thing and being the one who calls in the debt makes you rich. Thats what happened to Britain and its happening to the US.

[Sea Demon]

That's right. 25 years a literal eternity. The Roman Empire lasted for a few hundred years, the British Empire even fewer. Now the US is in massive debt, spending more money on the military than ever before and is alienating its allies and creating new enemies and is also simultaneously feeding the economic and industrial growth of its soon to be rivals. 25 years is nothing. The decline of the American Empire is occuring right now, its slow and sometimes not as easily noticed but ask any economist and they'll tell you that the US is burying itself, all but slowly. Sure the US will probably be the king for most of my life but its gonna happen. And yeah India and China have alot of mouths to feed, thats why they are gonna take over; they have the potential, and are taking advantage of it, to create the largest economic industrial nations of our time. The sheer number of people in China and India means that they have the largest potential labour force on the face of the earth. Have you not noticed that corporations keep outsourcing to India and CHina? How the trade deficit with China makes the US poorer and China richer? The infrastructure of both India and China are becoming more self sufficient that eventually they wont need the US for R&D. The US is giving these two nations the boost they need to become economic powers but eventually they wont need the US.

The US is in massive debt to Asian-Pacific nations. Britain was in massive debt to the US. If you guys really think you understand Capitalism and the blasted free-market then you should understand that being the debtor is a bad thing and being the one who calls in the debt makes you rich. Thats what happened to Britain and its happening to the US.

I love when people compare the US to the Roman Empire or Britian. There are indeed similarities as the US is now the top dog of our times. But there are differences as well. And no, I don't believe in the inevitability of U.S. dominance ad infinitum. But right now, that's the way it is. Like it or not. And sorry, but the U.S. economy does not look as though it's on the verge of crumbling. For a developed economy, it's outperforming most Western nations at 5.9% rate of growth. This is about half of China's under-developed growth at 10.7%. That's phenomenal. What's French growth like.....1.2%? What was Canada's? And as far as debt goes, the US debt is actually a smaller percentage in GDP than alot of other countries including those that float U.S. debt. *cough* Japan.

It really depends on the economist you're asking. You guys that compare these empires to the USA which is not exactly an empire, don't seem to realize the realities of todays economic interdependance is different than that of the past. Without western trade and dollars, China's banks are toast. It's true that alot of investment is being put into China for the time being. I believe it's not going to be the boon people think it will be. China has piracy and corruption problems that will eventually make people have second thoughts about putting their money there. Look what happened (is happening) to Chrysler.;)

[P_Funk]

FINALLY! Someone who has the intellectual pride to do research and actually argue with me! Well I don't think you've got it spot on but I'm amazed. The last few days all I've gotten is BS pro-American rhetoric. Well done my friend.

As for comparisons to other empires the similarity to the Roman Empire is simply that empires falls, inevitably. Also the similarities to the British Empire are accurate. I didn'timply that that it's gonna just fall apart suddenly like in 1929 butmore that one day things will swing and the US won't be so freaking wealthy. There will at that point be a crisis of sorts within the US because of the gross spending habits. Britian didn't fall apart but their empire did.

Also quoting GDP is not an accurate way of identifying economic strength. Many economists view both GDP and GNP as being far too narrow in what they define as efficient economic growth. Simply put GDP and GNP say that growth is good for growth's sake and ignore many other significant features of economics which might contradict the simple statistics of GDP or GNP. Growth does not always mean prosperity. And you say that the US's GDP islarger than all other Western powers. Well duh, thats why they're the best economic power. However China's GDP has grown significantly over the last 10 years and at a much higher rate than the US. It is only a matter oftime before China's growth exceeds that of the US. And GDP doesnt negate debt, especially when the spending habits of a nation's government could be featured on Dr. Phil.

Yes its true that China and the Asian Pacific Rim in general need the US right now. Bot once they stop being "developing" and become "developed" they will be able to easily outperform the US and all of the careless economic planning we're seeing today will finally be called in and the true concequences will be realized. But until then it's an American ship we're all sailing on, nodoubt about that.

[xrvjorn]

As for comparisons to other empires the similarity to the Roman Empire is simply that empires fall, inevitably.

Yep, nothing is permanent, especially not empires and super powers. Not much to wine about, you won't find many Danes, Poles, Spanyards, Austrians etc missing their lost power (a lot of countries over here has had a period of great power).

The supply of oil isn't permanent either, and todays wealthy countries are heavily dependent of it, especially the current top dog.

Britian didn't fall apart but their empire did.

So the US wont fall apart, but the situation will be "interesting" for any country that relies on the US (and their UN veto) in order to adopt a "screw the world, we've got the US to cover our back" attitude.

[Takeda Shingen]

I knew two people who did no more speak with me becasue I had Nietzsche's "The Anti-Christ" and "Dawning of the Idols" on my shelves. :lol: :lol:

I have had several similar experiences. The most amusing was six years ago: I was at my local bookshop, on a purchasing binge of worthwile material. I approached the counter with three books in a stack. Looking down, the clerk saw Aquinas' Summa Theologiae (hardbound and complete within three volumes for $40 US--great deal, but I think that package is now out of print). A smile and a nod followed as he scanned the book and saw what lay underneath: Decartes' Discourse on the Method. A smile, somewhat less enthusiatic, but still a smile. He scanned and looked at the last book: The Anti-Christ. The smile was gone. :lol:

[mog]

pps. Did you know that american NGO's and private persons donated twice as much money to the tsunami relief than US government?

That just reflects how the relationship between citizen and government is different in the US compared to most Western countries. Americans get taxed less and therefore have more independence and control over where their money goes. Europeans, on the other hand, expect their government to donate money on their behalf.

If the US government is 'Uncle Sam', your average Euro government is like an overbearing mother.

[catar M]

Don't get me started on this whole USA ,UN bull..... look what US did in Iraq.They haven't finished the job in Afghanistan and F$$#@ whole world , or is it just me?????

[Spoon 11th]

Yes. I did know about where the money for the tsunami relief came from. BTW, private persons in the USA also are taxpayers. And not only did I dip into my own finances for a private donation, but my tax dolloars went to the effort. Still, most of the money and materials came from the USA, and the pathetic UN tried to take the credit. That's the point.

Clearly you don't know. US governments cash donation to the relief was about 10% of the whole cake. Your comment that the whole relief was only possible due to US taxpayers is an utter insult to the international effort that was made.

[Takeda Shingen]

So the US wont fall apart, but the situation will be "interesting" for any country that relies on the US (and their UN veto) in order to adopt a "screw the world, we've got the US to cover our back" attitude.

The US will still have it's veto. Politically powerful nations hold relations more like a 'good ol' boy's club', rather than a purely statistical examination. Example: The G-7, a collection of the world's most powerful economies, became the G-8 after the Cold War so that Russia could be included. Of course, Russia, according to 2000 data, was ranked 20th in GNP. Granted, Russia does not attend most of the economic discussions, but they are still there as a player. Of course, on these grounds, China, Spain, The Netherlands, Australia and Mexico should be included as well, but these nations are excluded for political reasons. In short, the US can drop from it's perch at the top of the economic ladder, but will continue to retain it's clout.

Clearly you don't know. US governments cash donation to the relief was about 10% of the whole cake. Your comment that the whole relief was only possible due to US taxpayers is an utter insult to the international effort that was made.

10% of global contributions is still a disproportionate ammount, especially bearing in mind that most of this did come from private citizens. Furthermore, where was the global reciprocation when the hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed the gulf coast? The US does often act harmfully in the political spectrum, but it is nearly unassailable in humanitarian financial donation. It seems foolish to me when one tries to indict America on that ground.


EDIT: I left out India from the list of economic powers. An oversight on my part, as the Indian economy is fast becoming a world-leader.

[catar M]

Yes. I did know about where the money for the tsunami relief came from. BTW, private persons in the USA also are taxpayers. And not only did I dip into my own finances for a private donation, but my tax dollars went to the effort. Still, most of the money and materials came from the USA, and the pathetic UN tried to take the credit. That's the point.
Clearly you don't know. US governments cash donation to the relief was about 10% of the whole cake. Your comment that the whole relief was only possible due to US taxpayers is an utter insult to the international effort that was made.That just show how self centred US is , no offence to anyone btw the most money donated come from Australia and the way Indonesian government spent that money is terrible not where they should be spent in tsunami efected regions.Amd what we get back for that mastermind behind the Bali bombing was released after couple of years in jail and calls from them to us to convert to Islam or we will be burning in Hell:lol: newer going to happen

[SUBMAN1]

Yes. I did know about where the money for the tsunami relief came from. BTW, private persons in the USA also are taxpayers. And not only did I dip into my own finances for a private donation, but my tax dolloars went to the effort. Still, most of the money and materials came from the USA, and the pathetic UN tried to take the credit. That's the point.
Clearly you don't know. US governments cash donation to the relief was about 10% of the whole cake. Your comment that the whole relief was only possible due to US taxpayers is an utter insult to the international effort that was made.

Sounds to me that you want the US to fit the bill for everyones elses disaster. Nice. Why doesn't Finland pay 10%?

-S

[August]

[Your comment that the whole relief was only possible due to US taxpayers is an utter insult to the international effort that was made.
Sounds to me that you want the US to fit the bill for everyones elses disaster. Nice. Why doesn't Finland pay 10%?

-S

That's only money, and probably only donation pledges at that. You notice he conveniently fails to mention the carrier group we had over there for a few months running all those relief missions.

[xrvjorn]

Why doesn't Finland pay 10%?

:rotfl: :rotfl:

Here's a clue: they have a population of 5 million. No, I won't give you the rest of the answer. You'll have to try and figure it out for yourself, if possible.

[SUBMAN1]

Why doesn't Finland pay 10%?
:rotfl: :rotfl:

Here's a clue: they have a population of 5 million. No, I won't give you the rest of the answer. You'll have to try and figure it out for yourself, if possible.

Exactly - they can't. That money the US could use on itself, improving its infrastructure, making it more efficient, even paying its debts, but no - we gave it to people in need. I think people forget the fact that 'we don't have to give anyone anything'. It's sickning - damned if you do and damned if you don't.

-S

[Takeda Shingen]

Exactly - they can't. That money the US could use on itself, improving its infrastructure, making it more efficient, even paying its debts.....

The sum of money donated by the government alone would have gone a long way towards righting our decaying Interstate Highway System.

[Rockstar]

Funny I heard on several radio call in talk shows a call for "leadership, we need one man that can bring the world together".

Soon

[Spoon 11th]

10% of global contributions is still a disproportionate amount, especially bearing in mind that most of this did come from private citizens.
Relatively, for example, finnish government gave about 5 times more money than US and Australia gave 24 times more than US.

Furthermore, where was the global reciprocation when the hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed the gulf coast?
Initially, the United States was reluctant for several days to accept donations and aid from foreign countries other than Canada and the United Kingdom. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina)

The US does often act harmfully in the political spectrum, but it is nearly unassailable in humanitarian financial donation. It seems foolish to me when one tries to indict America on that ground.
I never said I was displeased about US effort. I just wanted to correct Sea Demons claim.

[SUBMAN1]

10% of global contributions is still a disproportionate amount, especially bearing in mind that most of this did come from private citizens. Relatively, for example, finnish government gave about 5 times more money than US and Australia gave 24 times more than US.

Furthermore, where was the global reciprocation when the hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed the gulf coast? Initially, the United States was reluctant for several days to accept donations and aid from foreign countries other than Canada and the United Kingdom. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina)

The US does often act harmfully in the political spectrum, but it is nearly unassailable in humanitarian financial donation. It seems foolish to me when one tries to indict America on that ground. I never said I was displeased about US effort. I just wanted to correct Sea Demons claim.

Your numbers aren't adding up. 5x more than the US would be 50% of the total donation. 24x would be 240% of the total donations - approx 140% more than what was given.

-S

[Takeda Shingen]

Initially, the United States was reluctant for several days to accept donations and aid from foreign countries other than Canada and the United Kingdom. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina)

Don't cite Wikipedia. However, I do understand that aid was offered, but it is still disproportionate to the ammount donated by the US. I am simply trying to illustrate that this is not a case of American greed and sloth. There are plenty of accurate examples of those.

[xrvjorn]

Your numbers aren't adding up. 5x more than the US would be 50% of the total donation. 24x would be 240% of the total donations - approx 140% more than what was given.

No, 5x absolutely would be 50%. 5x relatively is another matter.

[SUBMAN1]

Your numbers aren't adding up. 5x more than the US would be 50% of the total donation. 24x would be 240% of the total donations - approx 140% more than what was given.
No, 5x absolutely would be 50%. 5x relatively is another matter.

Exactly - still doesn't add up.

-S

[Takeda Shingen]

Spoon is talking about relativism as per capita. As it relates to population and GDP, the Finns donated more in the way of 'real' currency. However, this is faulty, because per capita spending is meaningless to the man who has had his hut swept away by the sea, or the African-American who has no home because of the flood. I applaude the Finnish effort just as I applaude the efforts of the United States.

[Skybird]

As for CB mentioning a world government, I rule that out for the next two thousand years or so, if "government" means a gremium supported and wanted by the people, all cultures, all religions. Possible that there will be a world dictatorship, and tyranny of bureaucrats, the brutal ruling of an economical cartel, but a freely elected world government?

and what are the alternatives? there are none..nada zilch.. one way or another there is no choice..anything we do in the mean time is just farting in the wind

Effectively, I see current history going in reverse mode. the way wars are fought and defined, for example ,does not change into something new, but instead approaches the conditions in Europe in the 15th and 16th century again.

I recommend Herfried Münkler's exceptionally well-done work "Die neuen Kriege" on that matter.


"There is nothing new under the sun - except what meanwhile has been forgotten." Some Spanish wise man, de Vico, or Santayana, maybe.

[xrvjorn]

However, this is faulty, because per capita spending is meaningless to the man who has had his hut swept away by the sea ..

It's faulty? Man, you guys have a way of turning everything around! So bugger all small nations, because their contributions will always be too small to make a difference? Thus, the American who gives one dollar is superior to the Finn who gives five, because nobody will notice a contribution from the latter anyway?

If you must take the attitude that per capita spending is meaningless, then why not add the Finns to the group "Foreigners", and you will find that the Foreigners made 90% of the contributions. Which, of course, is a completely meaningless observation.

[SUBMAN1]

Spoon is talking about relativism as per capita. As it relates to population and GDP, the Finns donated more in the way of 'real' currency. However, this is faulty, because per capita spending is meaningless to the man who has had his hut swept away by the sea, or the African-American who has no home because of the flood. I applaude the Finnish effort just as I applaude the efforts of the United States.

That is what I figured he is talking about, but wasn't sure. And as I said, it still doesn't add up to the $$$ that we had a choice in spending. We didn't have to give them 'anything'. The fact that we gave 10% of the total is way more than a fair share from one country.

What percentage did the next country give? What did China give? What did France give? The answer? China - 95 Mil. France - 305 mil. The US - 2.825 Billion!!! Hellooo? That is over 40% of the entire givings out of all countries!!! What the hell are we even having this conversation for? Who came up with 10%?

-S

[Takeda Shingen]

However, this is faulty, because per capita spending is meaningless to the man who has had his hut swept away by the sea ..

It's faulty? Man, you guys have a way of turning everything around! So bugger all small nations, because their contributions will always be too small to make a difference? Thus, the American who gives one dollar is superior to the Finn who gives five, because nobody will notice a contribution from the latter anyway?

Don't make me your strawman, xrvjorn. In no way did I say or insinuate anything remotely close to that. If anything, I said that a dollar is a dollar is a dollar, regardless of where it came from, or who handed it to whom.

If you must take the attitude that per capita spending is meaningless, then why not add the Finns to the group "Foreigners", and you will find that the Foreigners made 90% of the contributions. Which, of course, is a completely meaningless observation.

Per capita spending is meaninless. Yes, the 90% observation is meaningless too. When it comes down to it, all that matters is that the money was given to people who were in need of it.

[SUBMAN1]

However, this is faulty, because per capita spending is meaningless to the man who has had his hut swept away by the sea ..

It's faulty? Man, you guys have a way of turning everything around! So bugger all small nations, because their contributions will always be too small to make a difference? Thus, the American who gives one dollar is superior to the Finn who gives five, because nobody will notice a contribution from the latter anyway?

Don't make me your strawman, xrvjorn. In no way did I say or insinuate anything remotely close to that. If anything, I said that a dollar is a dollar is a dollar, regardless of where it came from, or who handed it to whom.

If you must take the attitude that per capita spending is meaningless, then why not add the Finns to the group "Foreigners", and you will find that the Foreigners made 90% of the contributions. Which, of course, is a completely meaningless observation.

Per capita spending is meaninless. Yes, the 90% observation is meaningless too. When it comes down to it, all that matters is that the money was given to people who were in need of it.

Based on his calculations, $ per capita should be rather high (if not the highest) for the US now at over 40% of all donations!

[Spoon 11th]

What percentage did the next country give? What did China give? What did France give? The answer? China - 95 Mil. France - 305 mil. The US - 2.825 Billion!!! Hellooo? That is over 40% of the entire givings out of all countries!!! What the hell are we even having this conversation for? Who came up with 10%?
Hello to you too. I used only government funding figures in my calculation, like I have said all along. I left out the NGO's and private donations because so much data is missing that it isn't reliable to do any math with.

[waste gate]

Why are we arguing this point? Most EU gov'ts tax their citizens to the point of poverty.

[Spoon 11th]

Based on his calculations, $ per capita should be rather high (if not the highest) for the US now at over 40% of all donations!
Not true. Including NGO's and private funds we finns still gave slightly more than twice as much as you americans. So haha, take that. I have really pissed you off, haven't I. Have a lollipop. :)

[SUBMAN1]

Based on his calculations, $ per capita should be rather high (if not the highest) for the US now at over 40% of all donations!
Not true. Including NGO's and private funds we finns still gave slightly more than twice as much as you americans. So haha, take that. I have really pissed you off, haven't I. Have a lollipop. :)

Finns gave a total of $85.9 Mil, which would equal $17.18 per Finn.

Us Yanks as you like to call us gave approx $11.77 per person, so yeah, you got me! :D

-S

[SUBMAN1]

One more incorrect statement - Finland is still top per capita.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

The complete report on US donations as of July 24th:

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/1551/un1jx7.gif

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/4821/un2da5.gif

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/3705/un3tj3.gif

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/839/un4kg7.gif

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/6982/un5sg8.gif

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/5508/un6gg5.gif

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/2023/un7xv7.gif

[SUBMAN1]

Incorrect statement - The other info seems more up to date. Finland may have beat the US on this one.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Scratch that - I may be wrong on this one. Let me read this doc.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Finnish docs as well:

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/1056/un10qj3.gif

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/6049/un11dg7.gif

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/1746/un12xp2.gif

[SUBMAN1]

Now I am not quite sure if these numbers are supposed to be in $1000 US dollars. The numbers would make much more sense if they were. Anyway, this is what the UN is reporting for total contributions by country.

-S

[P_Funk]

Congratulations! That's the first septuple post I've ever seen.:o I think the point that has been beaten back and forth is that Given the amount of money available to any one nation Finland gave and continues to give elsewhere more of what money is available to them than the US. In fact on the list of foreign aid per capita among the world's wealthiest nations the US sits at the bottom.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930884.html
Slighty older stats but not that much has changed in 4 years. The point here that you people keep missing is that the Fins and the Aussies and just about everyone else are giving more of what they have to those in need than the US by an absurd margin. This is easy to figure out though. The USs values are such that aiding those in need is not on the forefront of policies. The US is the only Western Industrialized nation without socialized health care. Yet the US is the wealthiest Western Industrialized nation. Its no wonder really. The US has a military budget which is larger than the next 12 combined. More than half of the annual budget is for military spending.

So this is the reality. The US isn't very concerned with the well being of poor people around the world, or even in it's more southern States. Hard numbers prove it. Don't try and play the arrogant superior game. The US is shamefully self serving on the world front. The numbers say so. And don't try and say that you do more than the Fins. Cause it ain't even close.

[SUBMAN1]

Congratulations! That's the first septuple post I've ever seen.:o I think the point that has been beaten back and forth is that Given the amount of money available to any one nation Finland gave and continues to give elsewhere more of what money is available to them than the US. In fact on the list of foreign aid per capita among the world's wealthiest nations the US sits at the bottom.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930884.html
Slighty older stats but not that much has changed in 4 years. The point here that you people keep missing is that the Fins and the Aussies and just about everyone else are giving more of what they have to those in need than the US by an absurd margin. This is easy to figure out though. The USs values are such that aiding those in need is not on the forefront of policies. The US is the only Western Industrialized nation without socialized health care. Yet the US is the wealthiest Western Industrialized nation. Its no wonder really. The US has a military budget which is larger than the next 12 combined. More than half of the annual budget is for military spending.

So this is the reality. The US isn't very concerned with the well being of poor people around the world, or even in it's more southern States. Hard numbers prove it. Don't try and play the arrogant superior game. The US is shamefully self serving on the world front. The numbers say so. And don't try and say that you do more than the Fins. Cause it ain't even close.

Choke up another BS responce from the superior Canadian! What are they up to huh? SHould we pull their numbers too?

-S

PS. We give more than any other single country, and yet we are still criticised. Nice.

PPS. One more thing - with all the BS I am hearing from the world stage, I wouldn't give another red cent to any of you if I had a choice. Anything that I have the chance to vote on from now on - thumbs down.

[SUBMAN1]

By the way - according to your chart - The US and Canada give equally. I especially like the part about the US population being much more generous than the Canooks North of the border.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

One more thing not shown in these charts are US military protection. Japan, Taiwan, even Canada rely heavily on the US for military protection. Where does this play in here? To say the US does nothing is ludicrous. We outspend the world in foreign aid with this alone. As far as I'm concerned, I am not sure for what anymore - a bunch of crybaby's who are jelous of the US? That is all I'm seeing now. This is really sad.

-S

[bradclark1]

Not reading the whole thread. Take into consideration that nothing in America is free.
Screw percentages. Until your country can beat that number you don't have anything to say.

2005:
USA 27,457 <<<<<<<<< Thats what counts.
Japan 13,101
UK 10,754
France 10,059
Germany 9,915
Netherlands 5,131
Italy 5,053
Canada 3,731
Sweden 3,280
Spain 3,123
Norway 2,775
Denmark 2,107
Belgium 1,975
Switzerland 1,771
Australia 1,666
Austria 1,552
Finland 897
Ireland 692
Greece 535
Portugal 367
New Zealand 274
Luxembourg 264

[scandium]

One more thing not shown in these charts are US military protection. Japan, Taiwan, even Canada rely heavily on the US for military protection. Where does this play in here? To say the US does nothing is ludicrous. We outspend the world in foreign aid with this alone. As far as I'm concerned, I am not sure for what anymore - a bunch of crybaby's who are jelous of the US? That is all I'm seeing now. This is really sad.

-S

Who are you protecting us from? And feel free to name 1 conflict, any conflict, that the US has fought either on Canada'a behalf or to defend Canada. Off the the top of my head I can think of at least one though that we're fighting right now on your behalf.

And as to the "jealousy" thing, in any "quality of life" or similar measure, Canada consistently comes out ahead of the US so I don't know what you think we're so jealous of.

Personally I like the U.S., but care neither for the nationalism I see there right now or the half-witted President who has been successfull only in sowing so much hatred and disharmony at home and abroad.

[SUBMAN1]

One more thing not shown in these charts are US military protection. Japan, Taiwan, even Canada rely heavily on the US for military protection. Where does this play in here? To say the US does nothing is ludicrous. We outspend the world in foreign aid with this alone. As far as I'm concerned, I am not sure for what anymore - a bunch of crybaby's who are jelous of the US? That is all I'm seeing now. This is really sad.

-S
Who are you protecting us from? And feel free to name 1 conflict, any conflict, that the US has fought either on Canada'a behalf or to defend Canada. Off the the top of my head I can think of at least one though that we're fighting right now on your behalf.

And as to the "jealousy" thing, in any "quality of life" or similar measure, Canada consistently comes out ahead of the US so I don't know what you think we're so jealous of.

Personally I like the U.S., but care neither for the nationalism I see there right now or the half-witted President who has been successfull only in sowing so much hatred and disharmony at home and abroad.
A response coming from someone with the logic earlier that all the Islamic extremist have been attacking the US since the 70's becasue we bombed them only yesterday - as was you logic in the Bash America thread (You're a real smart guy!). Yeah, that makes real sense, much like your quality of life - its ass backwards! I know Canada well. I spend part of my summer up there and I know their quality of life. Even though the people I deal with up there are well off, their quality of life is much less than that of the US if you look at it from an economic sense.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Not reading the whole thread. Take into consideration that nothing in America is free.
Screw percentages. Until your country can beat that number you don't have anything to say.

2005:
USA 27,457 <<<<<<<<< Thats what counts.
Japan 13,101
UK 10,754
France 10,059
Germany 9,915
Netherlands 5,131
Italy 5,053
Canada 3,731
Sweden 3,280
Spain 3,123
Norway 2,775
Denmark 2,107
Belgium 1,975
Switzerland 1,771
Australia 1,666
Austria 1,552
Finland 897
Ireland 692
Greece 535
Portugal 367
New Zealand 274
Luxembourg 264

Perfect analogy. Can't say it any better - gave them more than the rest of the world.

[scandium]

One more thing not shown in these charts are US military protection. Japan, Taiwan, even Canada rely heavily on the US for military protection. Where does this play in here? To say the US does nothing is ludicrous. We outspend the world in foreign aid with this alone. As far as I'm concerned, I am not sure for what anymore - a bunch of crybaby's who are jelous of the US? That is all I'm seeing now. This is really sad.

-S
Who are you protecting us from? And feel free to name 1 conflict, any conflict, that the US has fought either on Canada'a behalf or to defend Canada. Off the the top of my head I can think of at least one though that we're fighting right now on your behalf.

And as to the "jealousy" thing, in any "quality of life" or similar measure, Canada consistently comes out ahead of the US so I don't know what you think we're so jealous of.

Personally I like the U.S., but care neither for the nationalism I see there right now or the half-witted President who has been successfull only in sowing so much hatred and disharmony at home and abroad.
A response coming from someone with the logic earlier that all the Islamic extremist have been attacking the US since the 70's becasue we bombed them only yesterday - as was you logic in the Bash America thread (You're a real smart guy!). Yeah, that makes real sense, much like your quality of life - its ass backwards!


*shrug* rather than answer the question you prefer to resort to strawmen and ad hominem. And maybe its my lack of intelligence, as you say, but I can't for the life of me make any sense out of this contradictory statement of yours:

I know Canada well. I spend part of my summer up there and I know their quality of life. Even though the people I deal with up there are well off, their quality of life is much less than that of the US if you look at it from an economic sense.

[SUBMAN1]

One more thing not shown in these charts are US military protection. Japan, Taiwan, even Canada rely heavily on the US for military protection. Where does this play in here? To say the US does nothing is ludicrous. We outspend the world in foreign aid with this alone. As far as I'm concerned, I am not sure for what anymore - a bunch of crybaby's who are jelous of the US? That is all I'm seeing now. This is really sad.

-S
Who are you protecting us from? And feel free to name 1 conflict, any conflict, that the US has fought either on Canada'a behalf or to defend Canada. Off the the top of my head I can think of at least one though that we're fighting right now on your behalf.

And as to the "jealousy" thing, in any "quality of life" or similar measure, Canada consistently comes out ahead of the US so I don't know what you think we're so jealous of.

Personally I like the U.S., but care neither for the nationalism I see there right now or the half-witted President who has been successfull only in sowing so much hatred and disharmony at home and abroad.
A response coming from someone with the logic earlier that all the Islamic extremist have been attacking the US since the 70's becasue we bombed them only yesterday - as was you logic in the Bash America thread (You're a real smart guy!). Yeah, that makes real sense, much like your quality of life - its ass backwards!


*shrug* rather than answer the question you prefer to resort to strawmen and ad hominem. And maybe its my lack of intelligence, as you say, but I can't for the life of me make any sense out of this contradictory statement of yours:

I know Canada well. I spend part of my summer up there and I know their quality of life. Even though the people I deal with up there are well off, their quality of life is much less than that of the US if you look at it from an economic sense.

If you read - on average the quality of life is 'less' than the typical American counterpart. Not only do they make 'less' money on average comparitevely, but they also have to pay about 60% in taxes, keeping much less of that money. DOn't even get me started on their GST. Does that help?

-S

[SUBMAN1]

One more thought - their Health Care system is failing in my book. I've had to deal with it twice in the last 2 years and I can't tell you how disappointed I have been with the quality of care. THis last time, I told my mother in law to cross the border and just pay for American care. It was really pathetic.

-S

[Fish]

Congratulations! That's the first septuple post I've ever seen.:o I think the point that has been beaten back and forth is that Given the amount of money available to any one nation Finland gave and continues to give elsewhere more of what money is available to them than the US. In fact on the list of foreign aid per capita among the world's wealthiest nations the US sits at the bottom.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930884.html
Slighty older stats but not that much has changed in 4 years. The point here that you people keep missing is that the Fins and the Aussies and just about everyone else are giving more of what they have to those in need than the US by an absurd margin. This is easy to figure out though. The USs values are such that aiding those in need is not on the forefront of policies. The US is the only Western Industrialized nation without socialized health care. Yet the US is the wealthiest Western Industrialized nation. Its no wonder really. The US has a military budget which is larger than the next 12 combined. More than half of the annual budget is for military spending.

So this is the reality. The US isn't very concerned with the well being of poor people around the world, or even in it's more southern States. Hard numbers prove it. Don't try and play the arrogant superior game. The US is shamefully self serving on the world front. The numbers say so. And don't try and say that you do more than the Fins. Cause it ain't even close.

Choke up another BS responce from the superior Canadian! What are they up to huh? SHould we pull their numbers too?

-S

PS. We give more than any other single country, and yet we are still criticised. Nice.

PPS. One more thing - with all the BS I am hearing from the world stage, I wouldn't give another red cent to any of you if I had a choice. Anything that I have the chance to vote on from now on - thumbs down.

When you count non government and public donations Canada gives more the the US.

[scandium]

One more thing not shown in these charts are US military protection. Japan, Taiwan, even Canada rely heavily on the US for military protection. Where does this play in here? To say the US does nothing is ludicrous. We outspend the world in foreign aid with this alone. As far as I'm concerned, I am not sure for what anymore - a bunch of crybaby's who are jelous of the US? That is all I'm seeing now. This is really sad.

-S
Who are you protecting us from? And feel free to name 1 conflict, any conflict, that the US has fought either on Canada'a behalf or to defend Canada. Off the the top of my head I can think of at least one though that we're fighting right now on your behalf.

And as to the "jealousy" thing, in any "quality of life" or similar measure, Canada consistently comes out ahead of the US so I don't know what you think we're so jealous of.

Personally I like the U.S., but care neither for the nationalism I see there right now or the half-witted President who has been successfull only in sowing so much hatred and disharmony at home and abroad.
A response coming from someone with the logic earlier that all the Islamic extremist have been attacking the US since the 70's becasue we bombed them only yesterday - as was you logic in the Bash America thread (You're a real smart guy!). Yeah, that makes real sense, much like your quality of life - its ass backwards!


*shrug* rather than answer the question you prefer to resort to strawmen and ad hominem. And maybe its my lack of intelligence, as you say, but I can't for the life of me make any sense out of this contradictory statement of yours:

I know Canada well. I spend part of my summer up there and I know their quality of life. Even though the people I deal with up there are well off, their quality of life is much less than that of the US if you look at it from an economic sense.
If you read - on average the quality of life is 'less' than the typical American counterpart. Not only do they make 'less' money on average comparitevely, but they also have to pay about 60% in taxes, keeping much less of that money. DOn't even get me started on their GST. Does that help?

-S
I don't know where you're getting the 60% figure from, although you'll get no disagreement with me about the GST, quite the contrary in fact. The GST was introduced by the one politician that I really do loathe: Brian Mulroney.

Not only is the GST a horrible tax, Mulroney had to circumvent democracy to implement it by using an emergency clause in the constitution to appoint 8 yes-men to the Senate in order for it to pass. Then there were his patronage appointments where he put still more inexperienced yes-men in government creating scandal after scandal. And despite this horrible new tax, he still managed to jack the multi-billion dollar deficit up to the roof, putting further stress on an already fragile economy that just worsened the recession we experienced during his government.

Best of all, not only was Mulroney an incompetent "good old boy", he is probably the only PM to ever sue the Canadian government for millions of dollars, and win - as if he hadn't already done enough damage to the country that he couldn't do more by taking his former employer (the taxpayer) to court. Truly I loathe that guy, and it was Mulroney that turned me, forever, off of Conservative government.

[fredbass]

I think it would be fairly accurate to say that just about everyone, other than certain government agencies, is lacking enough information to conclude that the UN is corrupt. Of course there is corruption in most governments of every country on this planet, so the UN wouldn't be alone in that category.

There is way too much guessing, exaggeration and hyperbola abounding in this thread .

Given that, I'm not so sure the United States really needs to be a part of the UN. We really don't need them as far as I can tell and I don't see the UN being very effective. They have a debt towards the U.S. which I doubt they will ever repay and just seem to be an unneccesary expense.

[SUBMAN1]

One more thing not shown in these charts are US military protection. Japan, Taiwan, even Canada rely heavily on the US for military protection. Where does this play in here? To say the US does nothing is ludicrous. We outspend the world in foreign aid with this alone. As far as I'm concerned, I am not sure for what anymore - a bunch of crybaby's who are jelous of the US? That is all I'm seeing now. This is really sad.

-S
Who are you protecting us from? And feel free to name 1 conflict, any conflict, that the US has fought either on Canada'a behalf or to defend Canada. Off the the top of my head I can think of at least one though that we're fighting right now on your behalf.

And as to the "jealousy" thing, in any "quality of life" or similar measure, Canada consistently comes out ahead of the US so I don't know what you think we're so jealous of.

Personally I like the U.S., but care neither for the nationalism I see there right now or the half-witted President who has been successfull only in sowing so much hatred and disharmony at home and abroad.
A response coming from someone with the logic earlier that all the Islamic extremist have been attacking the US since the 70's becasue we bombed them only yesterday - as was you logic in the Bash America thread (You're a real smart guy!). Yeah, that makes real sense, much like your quality of life - its ass backwards!


*shrug* rather than answer the question you prefer to resort to strawmen and ad hominem. And maybe its my lack of intelligence, as you say, but I can't for the life of me make any sense out of this contradictory statement of yours:

I know Canada well. I spend part of my summer up there and I know their quality of life. Even though the people I deal with up there are well off, their quality of life is much less than that of the US if you look at it from an economic sense.
If you read - on average the quality of life is 'less' than the typical American counterpart. Not only do they make 'less' money on average comparitevely, but they also have to pay about 60% in taxes, keeping much less of that money. DOn't even get me started on their GST. Does that help?

-S
I don't know where you're getting the 60% figure from, although you'll get no disagreement with me about the GST, quite the contrary in fact. The GST was introduced by the one politician that I really do loathe: Brian Mulroney.

Not only is the GST a horrible tax, Mulroney had to circumvent democracy to implement it by using an emergency clause in the constitution to appoint 8 yes-men to the Senate in order for it to pass. Then there were his patronage appointments where he put still more inexperienced yes-men in government creating scandal after scandal. And despite this horrible new tax, he still managed to jack the multi-billion dollar deficit up to the roof, putting further stress on an already fragile economy that just worsened the recession we experienced during his government.

Best of all, not only was Mulroney an incompetent "good old boy", he is probably the only PM to ever sue the Canadian government for millions of dollars, and win - as if he hadn't already done enough damage to the country that he couldn't do more by taking his former employer (the taxpayer) to court. Truly I loathe that guy, and it was Mulroney that turned me, forever, off of Conservative government.

I'm just quoting my father-in-laws tax rate. Of course I am sure he is in a much higher tax bracket than the average guy, but I think I almost fell off my chair when I saw almost 60% in tax taken from his check! They practically tax people out of the country. Anyway, Canada is a good country that is better than most to live in, just that they have some questionable systems that need fixing. But every country has something that needs fixing.

-S

[scandium]

I'm just quoting my father-in-laws tax rate. Of course I am sure he is in a much higher tax bracket than the average guy, but I think I almost fell off my chair when I saw almost 60% in tax taken from his check! They practically tax people out of the country. Anyway, Canada is a good country that is better than most to live in, just that they have some questionable systems that need fixing. But every country has something that needs fixing.

-S

Agreed. :up:

[Skybird]

I red a rumour that the UN is trying to find ways to raise taxes itself directly from all citizens of member states. If that will ever come true, then it means that all reason and all hope is lost.

[Onkel Neal]

I'm just quoting my father-in-laws tax rate. Of course I am sure he is in a much higher tax bracket than the average guy, but I think I almost fell off my chair when I saw almost 60% in tax taken from his check! They practically tax people out of the country. Anyway, Canada is a good country that is better than most to live in, just that they have some questionable systems that need fixing. But every country has something that needs fixing.

-S

Wow, 60%! That's staggering. Well, at least he can sleep knowing the poor can afford their lottery tickets, cigarettes and health care ;)

[Yahoshua]

"Keep working, MILLIONS on welfare depend on you."


And, another favorite all time quote of mine:

"UNLEASH THE POWER OF MEDIOCRITY"

[scandium]

I'm just quoting my father-in-laws tax rate. Of course I am sure he is in a much higher tax bracket than the average guy, but I think I almost fell off my chair when I saw almost 60% in tax taken from his check! They practically tax people out of the country. Anyway, Canada is a good country that is better than most to live in, just that they have some questionable systems that need fixing. But every country has something that needs fixing.

-S
Wow, 60%! That's staggering. Well, at least he can sleep knowing the poor can afford their lottery tickets, cigarettes and health care ;)


Cigarettes have a special "luxury" tax on them which is well over 60%; lotteries, at least here, are owned and operated by the province, so this is also a kind of "taxation" since they generate the same kind of revenue and in about the same proportion.

We do pay more in taxes than most other G-8 countries, maybe more than all of them. But if its going toward things like health care for all, since all are citizens and human beings, then I don't care what people spend their money on; better healthcare than a $200 million dollar bridge to nowhere, or $30 billion on continued investment/development in nuclear weapons when the U.S. has already 10,000 of them, or the $100 billion missle defence shield that doesn't work, or upwards of a trillion dollars on a fiasco in Iraq.... do you sleep better at night knowing your tax dollars are being spent so well?

Lastly its probably worth mentioning that we have had balanced budgets for many years now, and budget surpluses. In the U.S. you are borrowing $500 billion/year from China, Saudi Arabia, and other investors to add to your $8.4 trillion dollar national debt. Do you sleep better at night knowing your government has decided that it can both cut taxes and still increase the size and spending of government by simply continually increasing the debt ceiling? How long do you suppose that can go on before the effects are felt?

From a Macleans article from last year:

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/world/article.jsp?content=20050307_101541_101541

David Walker can see the future, and it scares the hell out of him.

That wouldn't be terribly unusual if he were one of the thousands of lobbyists, legislators and activists crawling all over Washington on any given day, pontificating about the urgency of their pet issues. There is a thriving industry here built on pushing policy prescriptions for every ailment, real or imagined. But Walker isn't a lobbyist or an activist, he's an accountant. His title is comptroller general of the United States, which makes him the head auditor for the most important and powerful government in the world. And he's desperately trying to get a message out to anyone who'll listen: the United States of America's public finances are a shambles. They're getting rapidly worse. And if something major isn't done soon to solve the country's intractable budget problems, the world will face an economic shakeup unlike anything ever seen before.
Now our poor buying lottery tickets doesn't affect you, me, or anyone else. But your out of control deficit spending threatens to sink the U.S.S America if something isn't done to reign it in, and as our largest trading partner if you go down then we go down with you.

[Fish]

I'm just quoting my father-in-laws tax rate. Of course I am sure he is in a much higher tax bracket than the average guy, but I think I almost fell off my chair when I saw almost 60% in tax taken from his check! They practically tax people out of the country. Anyway, Canada is a good country that is better than most to live in, just that they have some questionable systems that need fixing. But every country has something that needs fixing.

-S
Wow, 60%! That's staggering. Well, at least he can sleep knowing the poor can afford their lottery tickets, cigarettes and health care ;)


Cigarettes have a special "luxury" tax on them which is well over 60%; lotteries, at least here, are owned and operated by the province, so this is also a kind of "taxation" since they generate the same kind of revenue and in about the same proportion.

We do pay more in taxes than most other G-8 countries, maybe more than all of them. But if its going toward things like health care for all, since all are citizens and human beings, then I don't care what people spend their money on; better healthcare than a $200 million dollar bridge to nowhere, or $30 billion on continued investment/development in nuclear weapons when the U.S. has already 10,000 of them, or the $100 billion missle defence shield that doesn't work, or upwards of a trillion dollars on a fiasco in Iraq.... do you sleep better at night knowing your tax dollars are being spent so well?

Lastly its probably worth mentioning that we have had balanced budgets for many years now, and budget surpluses. In the U.S. you are borrowing $500 billion/year from China, Saudi Arabia, and other investors to add to your $8.4 trillion dollar national debt. Do you sleep better at night knowing your government has decided that it can both cut taxes and still increase the size and spending of government by simply continually increasing the debt ceiling? How long do you suppose that can go on before the effects are felt?

From a Macleans article from last year:

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/world/article.jsp?content=20050307_101541_101541

David Walker can see the future, and it scares the hell out of him.

That wouldn't be terribly unusual if he were one of the thousands of lobbyists, legislators and activists crawling all over Washington on any given day, pontificating about the urgency of their pet issues. There is a thriving industry here built on pushing policy prescriptions for every ailment, real or imagined. But Walker isn't a lobbyist or an activist, he's an accountant. His title is comptroller general of the United States, which makes him the head auditor for the most important and powerful government in the world. And he's desperately trying to get a message out to anyone who'll listen: the United States of America's public finances are a shambles. They're getting rapidly worse. And if something major isn't done soon to solve the country's intractable budget problems, the world will face an economic shakeup unlike anything ever seen before.
Now our poor buying lottery tickets doesn't affect you, me, or anyone else. But your out of control deficit spending threatens to sink the U.S.S America if something isn't done to reign it in, and as our largest trading partner if you go down then we go down with you.

When the US sinks, it not only takes Canada down I am afraid. :-?

[Fish]

US National debt.

http://home.hccnet.nl/wico.p/National-Debt-GDP.JPG

[August]

US National debt.

You do realize that it is Congress, not the President that controls spending, right?

Which party was in control of Congress during those blue and red years?

[scandium]

US National debt.
You do realize that it is Congress, not the President that controls spending, right?

Which party was in control of Congress during those blue and red years?
I believe its the Republican party that has controlled Congress throughout the Bush Presidency, and the Republican Congress that pushed through Bush's tax cuts (twice? three times in spite of the fact that you are fighting two wars and that your deficit is out of control) and in which the Vice President left the bunker long enough to cast the deciding vote on one of them; also there is the Presidential veto, but why would Bush veto his own tax cutting agenda - or anything else? Its not like Bush has ever seen a spending bill he didn't like. His only veto after 6 years in office was on federally funded stem cell research - a bone to the fundie base.

[August]

I believe its the Republican party that has controlled Congress throughout the Bush Presidency
True, but it's also been a Republican controlled Congress since the 2nd half of the Clinton administration. You know, the 2nd half of that last blue line. Before that, during the Regan and Bush the Elder administrations, Congress was controlled by the Democrats, as represented by that 2nd red line. I haven't researched beyond that, although i believe the Democrats ran the Congress all through the Nixon/Ford administrations as well.

In other words, that chart is deliberately misleading. Of course you'd have to "leave the bunker" to find that out... :roll:

As for vetos, the President still does not have a line item veto. Congress gave him one back during the Clinton years but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in that it gave the executive branch too much power over the national purse strings.

So as it stands now, either the President vetos the entire budget or he doesn't veto any of it. If he does veto the entire budget then soldiers don't get paid, government shuts down and social services cease.

I don't know how this works in Canada, nor do i care, but I have to wonder yet again at how much some of you Canadians like to take potshots at my countries government. Don't you people have your own business to mind?

[SUBMAN1]

The Reagan years were a Cold War fight that accomplished on paper what a war machine couldn't do - bankrupt your primary enemy.

Sr Bush - Spent a lot on the first Gulf War.

Can someone tell me why Clinton never wiped out Al Qeida when he had a chance?

2nd Bush - Care to guess what happened here? Anyway, 2nd Bush has similar numbers to Clinton, so I don't know what the issue is here, and he has troops on the ground in 2 countries to boot!

-S

[fredbass]

US National debt.
You do realize that it is Congress, not the President that controls spending, right?

Which party was in control of Congress during those blue and red years?
I believe its the Republican party that has controlled Congress throughout the Bush Presidency, and the Republican Congress that pushed through Bush's tax cuts (twice? three times in spite of the fact that you are fighting two wars and that your deficit is out of control) and in which the Vice President left the bunker long enough to cast the deciding vote on one of them; also there is the Presidential veto, but why would Bush veto his own tax cutting agenda - or anything else? Its not like Bush has ever seen a spending bill he didn't like. His only veto after 6 years in office was on federally funded stem cell research - a bone to the fundie base.

Dito the above.

And talking about spending:

I hope noone forgets the billions that we (the U.S.) continue to spend on our military presence in Iraq. (controlled by Bush and the Republican Controlled Congress)

To me, it's a joke how the Republicans pretend to be conservative, but usually end up spending more. You might not have liked Clintons morals but our countries financial situation was looking pretty good at the time of his presidency if I remember correctly.

[August]

To me, it's a joke how the Republicans pretend to be conservative, but usually end up spending more. You might not have liked Clintons morals but our countries financial situation was looking pretty good at the time of his presidency if I remember correctly.

Due to that same Republican controlled Congress. Look it up.

[fredbass]

To me, it's a joke how the Republicans pretend to be conservative, but usually end up spending more. You might not have liked Clintons morals but our countries financial situation was looking pretty good at the time of his presidency if I remember correctly.

Due to that same Republican controlled Congress. Look it up.

ooh, got me. :lol:

And maybe that would be a sign as to how powerful and influential any current President really is. :know:

[tycho102]

It's unfortunate that the Supreme Court knocked down the Line-Item Veto. Something to the extent of "it puts the power of the purse in the Executive branch, rather than the Legislative branch". Which is a crock of guano, because The Congress can override it with a 66% vote.

For a Line-Item Veto, be it a Democrat or Greenparty President, I say amend the Constitution. A LI-Veto isn't micromanagement, it's a fundamental change worthy of amending the constitution, as long as it leaves the ability for The Congress to override the veto. It would rattle the special-interest sections. It would make it more difficult for Senators to reciprocate for their bribes, but only for a few years until the political balance gets worked out. And then it'll be mostly back to the usual kickback business, but it'll encourage "bi-partisanship" on every spending and tax-cut bill that comes across Congress.

Of course, you could get some screwball President elected that was vetoing all the pork-barrel additions and calling attention to them. Which is always a problem for the career incumbents.

[August]

It's unfortunate that the Supreme Court knocked down the Line-Item Veto. Something to the extent of "it puts the power of the purse in the Executive branch, rather than the Legislative branch". Which is a crock of guano, because The Congress can override it with a 66% vote.

For a Line-Item Veto, be it a Democrat or Greenparty President, I say amend the Constitution. A LI-Veto isn't micromanagement, it's a fundamental change worthy of amending the constitution, as long as it leaves the ability for The Congress to override the veto. It would rattle the special-interest sections. It would make it more difficult for Senators to reciprocate for their bribes, but only for a few years until the political balance gets worked out. And then it'll be mostly back to the usual kickback business, but it'll encourage "bi-partisanship" on every spending and tax-cut bill that comes across Congress.

Of course, you could get some screwball President elected that was vetoing all the pork-barrel additions and calling attention to them. Which is always a problem for the career incumbents.

I agree. Amendments to bills should be only about the bill itself, not things that are completely separate issues tacked on because they wouldn't pass congress on their own.

[August]

To me, it's a joke how the Republicans pretend to be conservative, but usually end up spending more. You might not have liked Clintons morals but our countries financial situation was looking pretty good at the time of his presidency if I remember correctly.
Due to that same Republican controlled Congress. Look it up.
ooh, got me. :lol:

And maybe that would be a sign as to how powerful and influential any current President really is. :know:

No. A president cannot create legislation. He can request that Congress take up issues but they are free to ignore him at their leisure. Name one thing Clinton did to improve the economy.

[SUBMAN1]

To me, it's a joke how the Republicans pretend to be conservative, but usually end up spending more. You might not have liked Clintons morals but our countries financial situation was looking pretty good at the time of his presidency if I remember correctly.
Due to that same Republican controlled Congress. Look it up.
ooh, got me. :lol:

And maybe that would be a sign as to how powerful and influential any current President really is. :know:
No. A president cannot create legislation. He can request that Congress take up issues but they are free to ignore him at their leisure. Name one thing Clinton did to improve the economy.

Only influential recent pres was Reagan. The only reason was his high (over 80%) approval rating. The only reason Congress did what he said was becasue if they didn't they'd risk loosing a re-election due to falling out of favor with the American public. Both Bush's, and Clinton never had this effect on Congress and can never hope to either.

-S

[scandium]

I believe its the Republican party that has controlled Congress throughout the Bush Presidency
True, but it's also been a Republican controlled Congress since the 2nd half of the Clinton administration. You know, the 2nd half of that last blue line. Before that, during the Regan and Bush the Elder administrations, Congress was controlled by the Democrats, as represented by that 2nd red line. I haven't researched beyond that, although i believe the Democrats ran the Congress all through the Nixon/Ford administrations as well.

In other words, that chart is deliberately misleading. Of course you'd have to "leave the bunker" to find that out... :roll:

As for vetos, the President still does not have a line item veto. Congress gave him one back during the Clinton years but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in that it gave the executive branch too much power over the national purse strings.

So as it stands now, either the President vetos the entire budget or he doesn't veto any of it. If he does veto the entire budget then soldiers don't get paid, government shuts down and social services cease.

I don't know how this works in Canada, nor do i care, but I have to wonder yet again at how much some of you Canadians like to take potshots at my countries government. Don't you people have your own business to mind?

Your national debt, because of its magnitude, because of its out of control spiral, and because of the danger posed once it hits a certain point is our business. We do $5 billion a day in trade with you guys, and like I said when your country suffers economically we tend to suffer as well.

[SUBMAN1]

I believe its the Republican party that has controlled Congress throughout the Bush Presidency
True, but it's also been a Republican controlled Congress since the 2nd half of the Clinton administration. You know, the 2nd half of that last blue line. Before that, during the Regan and Bush the Elder administrations, Congress was controlled by the Democrats, as represented by that 2nd red line. I haven't researched beyond that, although i believe the Democrats ran the Congress all through the Nixon/Ford administrations as well.

In other words, that chart is deliberately misleading. Of course you'd have to "leave the bunker" to find that out... :roll:

As for vetos, the President still does not have a line item veto. Congress gave him one back during the Clinton years but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in that it gave the executive branch too much power over the national purse strings.

So as it stands now, either the President vetos the entire budget or he doesn't veto any of it. If he does veto the entire budget then soldiers don't get paid, government shuts down and social services cease.

I don't know how this works in Canada, nor do i care, but I have to wonder yet again at how much some of you Canadians like to take potshots at my countries government. Don't you people have your own business to mind?
Your national debt, because of its magnitude, because of its out of control spiral, and because of the danger posed once it hits a certain point is our business. We do $5 billion a day in trade with you guys, and like I said when your country suffers economically we tend to suffer as well.

Such is life.

One possible bit of relief - If the Canadians and more of Europe would help out more on the world stage, such as militarily, maybe this could be pulled into check much easier. Problem is, Canada and Europe in general (minus the UK) have no real military capability anymore. Only a small defense force. That is why the US gets screwed playing world policeman. The only way Europe and Canada in general can put up any military assets is when they unite - which hasn't happened in a real way since the Gulf War.

Next problem - people don't get elected in this country for saying they are going to fix the national debt. They get elected because they promise to spend money. You have to buy your votes over here.

Another problem in the US - Campaign speding limits are non existant and you can also buy your way into office because of it. This coupled to the promise to spend money above is a bad way to conduct elections.

There are more problems, and this is just the tip of the Iceberg. Maybe the US should start pulling back its defense forces found around the world such as Korea, Japan, Europe, etc. and maybe we can save a buck. Besides, it is this protection that is causing other countries to back off in their military spending in the first place - so are we losing tax dollars from foreign defense spending because that foreign country thinks it doesn't need it anyway as long as US forces are in the area? Maybe this would also help to pay off our debts.

Anyway, the US used to get critizised for not being a player on the world stage and keeping out of peoples business. Now we get critiziced for exactly the opposite. From what I can see, you are back to the old - damned if you do, and damned if you don't. The world will always hate the US over nothing more than jelousy, no matter what it does.

-S

[August]

Your national debt, because of its magnitude, because of its out of control spiral, and because of the danger posed once it hits a certain point is our business. We do $5 billion a day in trade with you guys, and like I said when your country suffers economically we tend to suffer as well.

So stop then. Do business with someone else.

But seriously, aren't you the least bit concerned when someone distorts reality like they did in this chart? Or are you willing to go along with it because it supports your argument?

[aaken]

bah...criticizing does not mean hating. Lighten up. Moreover, most people here criticize other countries or political movements or religions. Some times the criticism becomes loathing. US cannot be criticized?:-?
Besides, I immagine that most part of the US military spending is to protect its interests all over the world. Some times the interests are shared by other partners, some times they are not.

[scandium]

Your national debt, because of its magnitude, because of its out of control spiral, and because of the danger posed once it hits a certain point is our business. We do $5 billion a day in trade with you guys, and like I said when your country suffers economically we tend to suffer as well.
Such is life.

One possible bit of relief - If the Canadians and more of Europe would help out more on the world stage, such as militarily, maybe this could be pulled into check much easier. Problem is, Canada and Europe in general (minus the UK) have no real military capability anymore. Only a small defense force. That is why the US gets screwed playing world policeman. The only way Europe and Canada in general can put up any military assets is when they unite - which hasn't happened in a real way since the Gulf War.
Sorry to burst your bubble there Subman, but in terms of "playing world policeman" Canada has led more international peace keeping forces than all other countries combined. I'll agree with you that in recent years we've let our military deteriorate, and in the process so has our capacity to engage in these missions - but revitalizing our military was one of the issues our PM campaigned on, and despite my mixed feelings for him (I didn't vote for him but am willing to give a chance all the same) this was one of things I agree with him on. As to the situation in Europe, I won't comment on that but I'm not sure - if you took an honest look at the way the Pentagon is spending its share of your discretionary spending budget (which is ~50% of the total pie by the way, and more than the rest of the world combined I believe) that you wouldn't see a lot of pointless pork and senseless waste that does nothing other than enrich special interest and contribute to your annual deficits.

Next problem - people don't get elected in this country for saying they are going to fix the national debt. They get elected because they promise to spend money. You have to buy your votes over here.
Oddly enough Bush was elected on a campaign to reduce government spending (which would reduce deficits) and refrain from "nation building" (which is also expensive and one of the things that contribute to annual deficits) - but he has done exactly the opposite ever since he took office.

Another problem in the US - Campaign speding limits are non existant and you can also buy your way into office because of it. This coupled to the promise to spend money above is a bad way to conduct elections. Agreed, though I think after some of the recent corruption scandals there is some momentum down your way to reform this area, though it'll probably take some time to see results.

There are more problems, and this is just the tip of the Iceberg. Maybe the US should start pulling back its defense forces found around the world such as Korea, Japan, Europe, etc. and maybe we can save a buck. Besides, it is this protection that is causing other countries to back off in their military spending in the first place - so are we losing tax dollars from foreign defense spending because that foreign country thinks it doesn't need it anyway as long as US forces are in the area? Maybe this would also help to pay off our debts. You could make a very good arguement on that case there, and one has to wonder whether the benefit/cost ratio justifies keeping them there now that the cold war is over.

Anyway, the US used to get critizised for not being a player on the world stage and keeping out of peoples business. Now we get critiziced for exactly the opposite. From what I can see, you are back to the old - damned if you do, and damned if you don't. The world will always hate the US over nothing more than jelousy, no matter what it does. That's an unfortunate paradox that comes with being the sole superpower. Though I wouldn't go so far as to say you are "hated" all over the world; you should know just from your visits to Canada that Americans are welcomed openly here and I imagine this is true just about anywhere you go outside of the "hotspots" that are dangerous for anyone to travel in.

[waste gate]

in terms of "playing world policeman" Canada has led more international peace keeping forces than all other countries combined.

Start shooting and quit watching others do the grunt wok. Peace keeping is nothing more than a way to say I have a white flag.

[scandium]

in terms of "playing world policeman" Canada has led more international peace keeping forces than all other countries combined.
Start shooting and quit watching others do the grunt wok. Peace keeping is nothing more than a way to say I have a white flag.
*shrug* a single example of a successful peace keeping mission to give you an idea of why the concept is an important one and how it can work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis

The Suez Crisis [1] was a war fought on Egyptian territory in 1956. The conflict pitted Egypt against an alliance between the United Kingdom, France and Israel. The USA also played a crucial role, albeit not a military one.

This alliance against Egypt largely took place as a result of the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser's action of nationalizing the Suez Canal Company, which operated the Suez Canal, an important asset to French and British economies, particularly as a chokepoint in world oil shipments. British policy makers initially feared an Israeli attack on Egypt, and sought cooperation with the United States throughout 1956 to deal with Egyptian-Israeli tensions.

The alliance between the two European nations and Israel was largely one of convenience; the European nations had economic and trading interests in the Suez Canal, while Israel wanted to reopen the canal for Israeli shipping and end Egyptian-supported guerrilla incursions.

When the USSR threatened to intervene on behalf of Egypt, Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs Lester B. Pearson feared a larger war and came up with a clever plan to separate the opposing forces by placing United Nations forces between them to act as a buffer zone or 'human shield' (he later won a Nobel Peace Prize for his role in ending the conflict). This gave birth to the concept of UN peacekeeping operations.

..

The operation to take the canal was highly successful from a military point of view, but a political disaster due to external forces. Along with Suez, the United States was also dealing with the near-simultaneous Soviet Hungary crisis, and faced the public relations embarrassment (especially in the eyes of the Third World) of criticizing the Soviet Union's military intervention there while not also criticizing its two principal European allies' actions.

Thus, the Eisenhower administration forced a cease-fire on Britain and France, which it had previously told the Allies it would not do. Part of the pressure that the United States used against Britain was financial, as Eisenhower threatened to sell the United States reserves of the British pound and thereby precipitate a collapse of the British currency. There was also a measure of discouragement for Britain in the rebuke by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers St. Laurent of Canada and Menzies of Australia at a time when Britain was still continuing to regard the Commonwealth as an entity of importance as the residue of the British Empire and as an automatic supporter in its effort to remain a world power.

The British government and the pound thus both came under pressure. Eden was forced to resign and the invading forces withdrew in March 1957. Before the withdrawal, Lester Pearson, Canada's acting cabinet minister for external affairs, had gone to the United Nations and suggested creating a United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) in the Suez to "keep the borders at peace while a political settlement is being worked out." The United Nations eagerly accepted this suggestion, and the force was sent, greatly improving conditions in the area. Lester Pearson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957 for his efforts. The United Nations Peacekeeping Force was Lester Pearson's creation and he is considered the father of the modern concept "peacekeeping".
That was a major conflaguration that, had the U.S.S.R. intervened on behalf of Egypt - as it was threatening to do, could very well have ignited WWIII. Its worth pointing out too that Canada's contribution did not occur in isolation, and was only made possible by the U.S. diplomatically imposed cease-fire and UN agreement and cooperation. But the cease-fire was enforced, the peace kept, and hostilties ended.

But that was a different age perhaps, though some of the parallels/contrasts to today are a little striking.

[waste gate]

But that was a different age perhaps, though some of the parallels/contrasts to today are a little striking.

A different age indeed.

[scandium]

Your national debt, because of its magnitude, because of its out of control spiral, and because of the danger posed once it hits a certain point is our business. We do $5 billion a day in trade with you guys, and like I said when your country suffers economically we tend to suffer as well.
So stop then. Do business with someone else.

But seriously, aren't you the least bit concerned when someone distorts reality like they did in this chart? Or are you willing to go along with it because it supports your argument?

No, because I'd already made my point and the chart is peripheral to it. If you want to debate the nitty gritty of the chart then that's another discussion, and with another person - I'm engaged in enough debates now as it is and already have my hands full ;)

[SUBMAN1]

Sorry to burst your bubble there Subman, but in terms of "playing world policeman" Canada has led more international peace keeping forces than all other countries combined. I'll agree with you that in recent years we've let our military deteriorate, and in the process so has our capacity to engage in these missions - but revitalizing our military was one of the issues our PM campaigned on, and despite my mixed feelings for him (I didn't vote for him but am willing to give a chance all the same) this was one of things I agree with him on. As to the situation in Europe, I won't comment on that but I'm not sure - if you took an honest look at the way the Pentagon is spending its share of your discretionary spending budget (which is ~50% of the total pie by the way, and more than the rest of the world combined I believe) that you wouldn't see a lot of pointless pork and senseless waste that does nothing other than enrich special interest and contribute to your annual deficits.
Not quite the way I see it - while Canada may have a peace keeping fling here and there, the US is on permanent patrol worldwide every day. Costs us 10's billions if not up to a 100 billion per year to remain on station like we do. This is what I am talking about. A temporary fling off to some third world country, though admirable, is not what the US is doing.


Oddly enough Bush was elected on a campaign to reduce government spending (which would reduce deficits) and refrain from "nation building" (which is also expensive and one of the things that contribute to annual deficits) - but he has done exactly the opposite ever since he took office.
I don't agree with you on this one. Kerry was all over reducing the debt to no avail in his speaches, where Bush took a more modest approach and never took it head on. Same with Bush vs. Gore, though Gore was a more believable opponent. With Kerry, you didn't know what to believe.

...

That's an unfortunate paradox that comes with being the sole superpower. Though I wouldn't go so far as to say you are "hated" all over the world; you should know just from your visits to Canada that Americans are welcomed openly here and I imagine this is true just about anywhere you go outside of the "hotspots" that are dangerous for anyone to travel in.
Travel to Canada has been a mixed bag. B.C. people are indifferent. In the Toronto area they are fairly nice. Montreal people however I have had issue with. For the simple fact that I am not fluent in French, they have refused to help me. Sorry, but I'll take my $$$ elsewhere. In another incident, I have been held up at a security guard checkpoint because I am not French, yet a French guy pulls up right behind me, and the lady just waives him on, so I just followed him with her all screaming at me and swearing at me in French because I ignored her. Like what the hell? Anyway, Montreal sort of makes up for inhospitality with good food! I end up there every couple years and don't mind finding new places to eat. Orange Julip (did I spell it right?) makes a pretty killer chicken sandwhich.

-S

[waste gate]

Travel to Canada has been a mixed bag. B.C. people are indifferent. In the Toronto area they are fairly nice. Montreal people however I have had issue with. For the simple fact that I am not fluent in French, they have refused to help me. Sorry, but I'll take my $$$ elsewhere. In another incident, I have been held up at a security guard checkpoint because I am not French, yet a French guy pulls up right behind me, and the lady just waives him on, so I just followed him with her all screaming at me and swearing at me in French because I ignored her. Like what the hell? Anyway, Montreal sort of makes up for inhospitality with good food! I end up there every couple years and don't mind finding new places to eat. Orange Julip (did I spell it right?) makes a pretty killer chicken sandwhich.


Why bother.
On the world scene Canada is a very small player. Except when dispatch troops to man U.N. peace keeping (white flag waving) missions of course.

[scandium]

Montreal people however I have had issue with. For the simple fact that I am not fluent in French, they have refused to help me. Sorry, but I'll take my $$$ elsewhere. In another incident, I have been held up at a security guard checkpoint because I am not French, yet a French guy pulls up right behind me, and the lady just waives him on, so I just followed him with her all screaming at me and swearing at me in French because I ignored her. Like what the hell? Anyway, Montreal sort of makes up for inhospitality with good food! I end up there every couple years and don't mind finding new places to eat. Orange Julip (did I spell it right?) makes a pretty killer chicken sandwhich.

-S
The "mixed experience" that you mention in Quebec is also felt by anglophone Canadians as well, although I think much of it is due to frustration at language barriers and an expectation of hostility there that is magnified in our mind when we encounter it. I've spent several summers in Montreal growing up, but a trip through eastern Quebec is more memorable on this topic, as I'd experienced what I perceived as hostility while being stranded in a small Quebec town after record rain falls had closed the two roads out; I wound up in an all-night diner (this was at 4 am) to try and find out what was going on, how long the roads were expected to be closed, and if there was anyway out but everyone I approached would mutter only a couple words in french and then turn away.

I took a seat at the counter, ordered coffee and while drinking it a man came up, sat down and began explaining to me what was going on and answered my questions; he was bilingual and spoke very good english and was very polite as well which took away some of my sourness.

Anyway after one of the roads opened I made my way to Quebec city, and by this time it was 2 AM, and with my bad luck continuing, got lost. I found an open gas station where again the attendent spoke almost no english and my french wasn't much better, and they had no maps - but through a mix of english/french he let me know that he was closing and if I wanted to give him a lift home, his roomates spoke english and could help with directions.

Wound up doing that, and they were all really cool people who I had a beer with and chatted with for several hours (2 were fluently bilingual and translated for the others who spoke little or no english) about Quebec city, my own province, trip, etc, etc. It was an exceptionally good experience (they were all quite young, university students, and I was only 19 or 20 then myself) and the kind that I look back on whenever I think of the rudeness that is often associated with Quebecers.

Anyway that was a bit rambling :D

[Onkel Neal]

Man, I love how these threads morph in different dirrections. :cool:

[SUBMAN1]

Montreal people however I have had issue with. For the simple fact that I am not fluent in French, they have refused to help me. Sorry, but I'll take my $$$ elsewhere. In another incident, I have been held up at a security guard checkpoint because I am not French, yet a French guy pulls up right behind me, and the lady just waives him on, so I just followed him with her all screaming at me and swearing at me in French because I ignored her. Like what the hell? Anyway, Montreal sort of makes up for inhospitality with good food! I end up there every couple years and don't mind finding new places to eat. Orange Julip (did I spell it right?) makes a pretty killer chicken sandwhich.

-S
The "mixed experience" that you mention in Quebec is also felt by anglophone Canadians as well, although I think much of it is due to frustration at language barriers and an expectation of hostility there that is magnified in our mind when we encounter it. I've spent several summers in Montreal growing up, but a trip through eastern Quebec is more memorable on this topic, as I'd experienced what I perceived as hostility while being stranded in a small Quebec town after record rain falls had closed the two roads out; I wound up in an all-night diner (this was at 4 am) to try and find out what was going on, how long the roads were expected to be closed, and if there was anyway out but everyone I approached would mutter only a couple words in french and then turn away.

I took a seat at the counter, ordered coffee and while drinking it a man came up, sat down and began explaining to me what was going on and answered my questions; he was bilingual and spoke very good english and was very polite as well which took away some of my sourness.

Anyway after one of the roads opened I made my way to Quebec city, and by this time it was 2 AM, and with my bad luck continuing, got lost. I found an open gas station where again the attendent spoke almost no english and my french wasn't much better, and they had no maps - but through a mix of english/french he let me know that he was closing and if I wanted to give him a lift home, his roomates spoke english and could help with directions.

Wound up doing that, and they were all really cool people who I had a beer with and chatted with for several hours (2 were fluently bilingual and translated for the others who spoke little or no english) about Quebec city, my own province, trip, etc, etc. It was an exceptionally good experience (they were all quite young, university students, and I was only 19 or 20 then myself) and the kind that I look back on whenever I think of the rudeness that is often associated with Quebecers.

Anyway that was a bit rambling :D

I hear ya, but in my case, a French lady walked in (clothing store) and spoke half French half English and that clerk speaks fluent English as well as I do. I've had other instances, but that one is one of the most memorable ones because you know it was just because I wasn't French!

Anyway, as Neal says, way off topic.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Man, I love how these threads morph in different dirrections. :cool:

oops!

[fredbass]

Name one thing Clinton did to improve the economy.

It isn't what he did but what he didn't do to make it worse unlike our current president. And if I remember correctly, the National debt was actually coming out of the red for a change. So much for that now.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt/

Now I call that BIG TIME IMPROVEMENT. And yes, I do give him a lot of that credit.

Edit: I know we've all gone off subject but who cares, we're having fun. :)

[August]

Name one thing Clinton did to improve the economy.
It isn't what he did but what he didn't do to make it worse unlike our current president. And if I remember correctly, the National debt was actually coming out of the red for a change. So much for that now.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt/

Now I call that BIG TIME IMPROVEMENT. And yes, I do give him a lot of that credit.

Edit: I know we've all gone off subject but who cares, we're having fun. :)

Sorry it was a trick question. Presidents do not control the national economy, nor do they increase or decrease the national debt. That, as i have said a few times already is the purview of Congress.

If you want to give credit for that payment then give it to the Republican controlled congress who actually did it, not the sleazy sexual predator who tried to take credit for it.

[Ducimus]

Im only responding the the post title.


As long as there are nations, there will be war, and a need for an international body will always be there. The UN isnt the greatest, but its all we got. So, no, i dont think we should leave the UN. That in action would make us a rouge country, and thats not something i like the sound of.

I do however think we should greatly reduce the funding we provide to the UN as well as support in men and material. Other countries should anny up more, i dont see why we have to put forth as much as is expected of us. We need to concern ourselves with our own people more, and other people less. All that money we spend on other nations problems would be better spent on our own people.

[SUBMAN1]

Im only responding the the post title.


As long as there are nations, there will be war, and a need for an international body will always be there. The UN isnt the greatest, but its all we got. So, no, i dont think we should leave the UN. That in action would make us a rouge country, and thats not something i like the sound of.

I do however think we should greatly reduce the funding we provide to the UN as well as support in men and material. Other countries should anny up more, i dont see why we have to put forth as much as is expected of us. We need to concern ourselves with our own people more, and other people less. All that money we spend on other nations problems would be better spent on our own people.

I have to agree for the most part, since it would be a dumb idea to give up a permanent seat considering there are only 5. But a pullback of funding sounds like the best way to protest.

-S

[zombiewolf]

The UN = The New World Order.(Free Masons)bet they all have aprons

[waste gate]

Agreed, to pull out of the UN would not be wise. Influence is everything on the world stage. As a permanent member of the security council with veto power should not be squandered.

Using the council to to protect our (US) interests is vastly more important than any reason to bail out.

I think the US does withold funds on a regular basis, as does France, Great Britain, Russia and China. All nations are looking out for their own best interests. The members of the security council more so. Which is why the secratary general (Kofi Annan) can talk 'til he is blue in the face. Without the security council he is as impotent as the peace keeping forces he sends to troubled areas around the world.

[fredbass]

Using the council to to protect our (US) interests is vastly more important than any reason to bail out.

Maybe I just fail to see how they protect our (US) interests.:-?

I think we can handle that part just fine without them, thankyou very much.:roll:

[fredbass]

If you want to give credit for that payment then give it to the Republican controlled congress who actually did it, not the sleazy sexual predator who tried to take credit for it.

Sorry, I prefer my conclusion better. And I'll take a sleazy President any time if that's what it takes to turn things around. God how I miss those Monica Lewinsky days. :D, though I do like Mrs. Bush. :)

[August]

If you want to give credit for that payment then give it to the Republican controlled congress who actually did it, not the sleazy sexual predator who tried to take credit for it.

Sorry, I prefer my conclusion better. And I'll take a sleazy President any time if that's what it takes to turn things around. God how I miss those Monica Lewinsky days. :D, though I do like Mrs. Bush. :)

Except he didn't turn things around. He just took credit, or tried to, for the economic reforms started under the Reagan presidency.

[bradclark1]

But a pullback of funding sounds like the best way to protest.

America hasn't paid it's dues to the U.N. for a number of years. Can't remember the reason why, but it's in protest of something.

[SUBMAN1]

The bad news about any presidency from an economic persepctive:

It takes 8 years for a presidents policy and influence to have any real permanent effect on the economy. So by about the time a president is leaving office, assuming he had two terms, he is passing either good or bad economic policy on to his replacement. So his replacement will always reap the windfall, good or bad of the previous presidency. Next pres comes in, and the cycle begins again.

-S

[SubSerpent]

BOTTOM LINE PEOPLE....



Please, go out and VOTE this upcoming election.


If you are a rich snob who profits greatly from this war or scared to death that Darth Vader is going to take over the world followed by little green Marshans with WMD - then go out and vote conservative again or better yet go drown yourself in your bathtub and end your misery!


If you are like me and feel lied to, robbed, and down right disrespected about the war in Iraq, then please don't hesitate to vote Democrat. Lets get our troops the hell out of there and put this whole worthless and wasteful use of government money back into the American peoples pockets where it belongs and NEVER again vote republican in the future.

I admit I made a mistake by voting for Bush. I will NEVER again vote for a republican so long as I live. I am willing to bet that it won't be until we have a democratic president and democratic congress in power again that Osama Bin Laden gets captured and justly hanged. His capture and death is what most American's and what I believe the world wanted from Bush, NOT THE WAR IN IRAQ, that he and his regime so cleverly masterminded wth his whole fear about WMD being developed and aimed at America and her allies. He and his regime are the true bad guys for instilling fear into the American citizen and using this fear for their own personal agenda and profit. Shame on them for this and long live America!!!

[Yahoshua]

Right...right.

Whatever you say Subserpent.

Exactly what solutions do the Dems have? All I've heard from them are complaints about how things are run, but no solutions. Certainly nothing regarding the war in Iraq will not go away, and it is here to stay (cut and run is what happened in Vietnam. People like YOU asked for it. And it's bad enough that our gov't abandoned a democracy to the communists who then systematically slaughtered anyone who could oppose them. Lets try and do things different;y in Iraq this time around.).

[SubSerpent]

Right...right.

Whatever you say Subserpent.

Exactly what solutions do the Dems have? All I've heard from them are complaints about how things are run, but no solutions. Certainly nothing regarding the war in Iraq will not go away, and it is here to stay (cut and run is what happened in Vietnam. People like YOU asked for it. And it's bad enough that our gov't abandoned a democracy to the communists who then systematically slaughtered anyone who could oppose them. Lets try and do things different;y in Iraq this time around.).

Vietnam was a shame I admit. But DONT YOU DARE point you finger at me and state that it was ME that ASKED for it considering my father died there before I was born *******

[August]

Vietnam was a shame I admit. But DONT YOU DARE point you finger at me and state that it was ME that ASKED for it considering my father died there before I was born ******!!!
Actually i think he said it was people like you, not you in particular.

I'm sorry about your father, mine was lucky, he made it through Vietnam with only some shrapnel wounds and psycological problems that lasted the rest of his life, but what happened to our fathers and our nation was the fault of the Democrats. They are the ones who started that war, never forget that.

[Onkel Neal]

Let's watch the language here. If this discussion is making some too excited, simply leave the thread alone.