Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 10Bears on March 12, 2003, 03:32:50 AM
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml
(CBS) Sources tell CBS News that Great Britain – America's closest ally – may find it politically impossible to commit its military to a U.S.-led attack on Saddam Hussein. And that could force the United States to go it alone in Iraq.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld hinted as much Tuesday.
"To the extent that they are able to participate that would obviously be welcomed. To the extent they are not, well, there are workarounds," Rumsfeld said.
War in Iraq is now supported by fewer than 20 percent of Britons, and Prime Minister Tony Blair has told Washington he needs U.N. authorization, reports CBS News Correspondent Bill Plante.
Go get em Rummy.. You sayin’ you don’t need the British as an ally?.. Oh that will go over real good.
"Candidly, I have gotten somewhat nervous at some of the
pronouncements Rumsfeld has made. When he makes his comments, it
appears that he disregards the Army. He gives the perception when he's on TV that he is the guy driving the train and everybody else better fall in line behind him -- or else. It's scary, okay? Let's face it:
There are guys at the Pentagon who have been involved in operational planning for their entire lives, okay? . . . And for this wisdom, acquired during many operations, wars, schools, for that just to be ignored, and in its place have somebody who doesn't have any of that training, is of concern."
-- Norman Schwarzkopf
Woo Hoo.. let the Brit bashing begin!... I never much liked kidney pie..
But there’s more... listen to what Bushdaddy said
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-605441,00.html
THE first President Bush has told his son that hopes of peace in the Middle East would be ruined if a war with Iraq were not backed by international unity.
Drawing on his own experiences before and after the 1991 Gulf War, Mr Bush Sr said that the brief flowering of hope for Arab-Israeli relations a decade ago would never have happened if America had ignored the will of the United Nations
Hey I thought there was a tradition ex presidents don’t bash the current administration especially if the former president is his FATHER
Ya know I backed out of a bet with Toad that the United States would go completely insane and attack anyway.. I might’ve won that bet that no, calmer heads would prevail.
-
I'm beginning to think Saddam has won the war of nerves.
-
The U.S. and U.K. only need a de facto UN backing for the invasion of Iraq. Even if France vetos the resolution, as long as the U.S. and U.K. have a majority of the Security Council members vote yes, then that gives them de facto approval for the invasion. The U.S. and U.K. can then claim that they did indeed have the backing of the U.N., despite a veto from France.
Ack-Ack
-
I'm beginning to think Saddam has won the war of nerves.
Maybe. He has out-manouevered an administration that has a piss-poor ability to play the diplomatic game and has benefitted hugely from the splits amongst the Western democracies. This whole thing should have been a done deal, before it even started rolling.
Blair has been put in an impossible position and he's in very hot water politically. And you know what? The US probably couldn't give a toejam. So much for that 'special relationship'.
Now let's see what we've achieved over the last 6 months:
1) Massive trans-atlantic splits between nations who should be working together
2) Large splits within the EU and with former SU republics
3) A Saddam Hussein who has gained reluctant support from those pretty much despise him
4) A pissing away of the anti-terrorist sentiment and unity post-911
"The Art of Diplomacy is letting people have your own way."
It's a shame that maxim wasn't given more regard. The bulldozer has no place in these affairs. While this mess certainly isn't the sole responsibility of the US, was a compromise such a difficult thing to achieve?
-
France & Germany are the bad guys here, remember.
And do remember their motivation...
France=Money and oil
Germany=Public opinion benefits for the sitting government
-
France and Germany don't want us getting our hands on the paperwork in Baghad that will show what kind of things they have been selling to Iraq since the embargo.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
France & Germany are the bad guys here, remember.
And do remember their motivation...
France=Money and oil
Germany=Public opinion benefits for the sitting government
I have read some of your stuff and I cant hold myself from saying it: You are a total idiot, I am amazed that you know how to breath.
Crabofix
BORK, BORK, BORK
-
Originally posted by crabofix
I have read some of your stuff and I cant hold myself from saying it: You are a total idiot, I am amazed that you know how to breath.
And you manage to show your eloquence in your first post. I mean why say something on the actual subject instead of diving in head first with personal attacks.
Trying to fit in huh?
-
Uhm i guess its not only France and Germany. At the moment there are many more countries that dont want a war NOW.
The funny part is that the German government is acting like their citizens want them to act - if its wrong or right doesnt matter cause the majority decides in a democracy.
U can start ur bashing about the dumb german morons and Saddam supporters now... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Duedel
Uhm i guess its not only France and Germany. At the moment there are many more countries that dont want a war NOW.
The funny part is that the German government is acting like their citizens want them to act - if its wrong or right doesnt matter cause the majority decides in a democracy.
That is not the way a democracy works. Democracy as we have it now works in another way. I vote for the guy I think will do the best job of running the country for the next 4 years. That means I think that whatever happens between this election and the next election, he is the guy to tackle those problems. Basically I trust him with getting the job done, I trust him with looking out for my country.
First:
You are talking about opinion polls. Do you have any idea how easy it is to get the results you want by formulating the questions in an opinion poll?
I guarantee that I could formulate a question in an opinion poll that would indicate that 80-90% of the population in France would support a war without UN sanction against Iraq.
Second:
You are talking about public opinion. That is, alot of people who get their information on the Iraq issue from one or two news sources. This news reporting is NEVER objective. Something I think we all know, because when we argue over issues like this on an internet BB we tend to get insights into other countries news reporting. If you would compare CNN to (insert some French news agency here) you would note that even though they are reporting the same thing, they are spinning it in different directions.
The public can never be informed enough to form a reasonable and well balanced opinion. Public opinion will always be at the mercy of the media. A media that cannot be completely trusted to deliver an objective report of the truth.
Also, the only way to examine what the public opinion really is, is through national elections. You simply cannot trust an opinion poll to give you a truthful image of the public opinion.
Only the government of your nation can be trusted to make an informed desicion on your nations security policy. This is based on this very simple notion.
Your government will always have more information on any given security issue than you. Your government has thousands of guys working with national security, constantly gathering information, analyzing information and making assessments. They know stuff you have no idea about. Because YOU get all your information from the media. Media is biased.
-
So they back out? Your point?
They have their policies, we have ours. While the U.S. appreciates sharing the burden of ridding the world of psychos, assistance is not neccessary.
A little appreciation on occaision would be nice, though.
-
Hiya's,
Money revolves this world and favours are abound
This is politics
Here in the UK we have some serious undercover open-all-the-can-of-worms and be done with it documentaries
Best example is Panorama
A real great no-holds-barred docu company
Now to give you an idea of the politics and underhand/illegal sleeze some certain countries well country will do here's an example
A nationalised petro-checmical company (smurfs ring a bell here)
Was run and governed by hmm politicians
But as it was propped up by taxpayers and EU contributions he he
This was thought to be "their moneybank" so they would dip into it's funding and have a nice lavvish lifestyle ohh and also of course they had to provide for their mistresses ;) so this and other underhand dealing caused a large amount of "monies" to hmm well be used for none petro-chemical stuff
Of course this "only" can happen in this industry !!!
By gawd it can't happen on wmd parts surely ! ;)
Waiting for great docu's to comeout well after middle east is at a more "safe" state :)
Then we will be able to see who did what and why and maybe see if yet again "money" played a part on certain countries efforts
-
OOPS,
UK at last mori poll i saw was 72 or 75% in favour of action IF it would remove the current regime and made life easier for the average iraqi
A poll i did see don't think it was a mori but went like this
70% against action in iraq without UN sanction
Now to add to confusion another poll was
If the UK suffered a terrorist attack alike the 9/11 would you support action in the middle east if a country could be linked to terror
81% said yeah
Now it seems polls do 2 things to me
shows hardliners for/against
But when it happens (say a terror attack) this suddenly changes the not in my back yard i am ok jack'ers into action people
And people need to think about this
OK so they can't "find" any wmd's but hell have you seen footage and read about n seen ex-generals that defected talk/explain how things were/are hid
If you had a line of millions of peops walk across a country with some methods that seem to be used in concealing stuff you would still never find stuff ;)
This worlds goin down "the tubes" fast, and with certain idiots possessing and hoping to possess wmd's can't some people get to grips with sometime in the future things will get lots worse if left as they are at this moment in time
Maybe your little part of this globe won't be effected today/tomorrow or next year but don't expect it to all be rosey in decades to come if left unchecked
The world never looks back .............
Nazi'ism spl ? led to appauling deaths
World vowed never to allow this to happen again
Few decades ago
The balcans led to appauling deaths
World vowed never to allow this to happen again
Places in africa not long ago
Led to appauling deaths
World vowed never to allow this to happen again
Now we have a chance or may of missed it, To never allow it to carry-on in the middle east
World will never allow this to happen
Hindsight is great
But not if ones blind at looking back
As for Blair i can't stand his politics but i do admire what he is and trying to do
He has vision and as so many people don't for one reason or another they can't see that he is looking well into the future and at this moment it's looking bleak
Anyways he is dead politicaly but i admire him for his stance, and not for standing with our main friend the USA but for actually being a dork politician that has convictions and seems to realise what toejam the future left unchecked can bring
As for losing UK forces who knows
Did'nt america in wwi and wwii allow it's forces to "volunteer" ?
I wouldn't think it would come to this anyways though blairs a dead un
Someway you can bet ya last $ and life savings the UK will be somewhere with usa and from what i can grasp from polls and listening to chats it's the same underlying trend
Medicine tastes aweful mainly, We all take a swig and feel better afterwards
Time for the worlds decent community to take a bitter pill swig and feel better later on ;)
anyways need a drink end of rant :D
-
I think 70% of Americans in a latest poll showed support for action with UN backing (Including me). If we don't get it, we most likely won't go in me thinks and will turn to more extentions, resolutions and the anti-war folks will continue a life of freedom, democracy while the Iraqi people continue to live under a dictorial threat. So what? This might as well be 1939 all over again as far as Isolationism goes...remember the majority of US did NOT want to get involved in war as well.
And as much as 10bears thinks that Rummy is a warmonger, let me quote him from yesterday:
".
“The goal is to not have a war,” he said. “The goal is to have the pressure be so great that Saddam Hussein cooperates. Short of that ... the goal is to have the capabilities of the coalition so clear and so obvious that there is an enormous disincentive for the Iraqi military to fight against the coalition and there’s an enormous incentive for Saddam Hussein to leave and spare the world a conflict.”
-
I say assassinate the son-of-a-squeak using a strike team. It is a toejamload better than higher casulties. I think this could lead to a war that the US, won't want to be in.
Karaya2
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I think 70% of Americans in a latest poll showed support for action with UN backing
Just to make things clear thats excactly my opinion.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
And you manage to show your eloquence in your first post. I mean why say something on the actual subject instead of diving in head first with personal attacks.
Trying to fit in huh?
I do not post very often, but, ok, I can give you a little hint of what I think.
I think that US is acting like they are a supreme nation that stands above all international laws and agreements.
You mention France thinking about Oil and money.
The US will make sure that the "trade food for oil" agrement is continued after "they win the war". Talk about being interested about Oil.
I know a couple of US citizens that Resigned their citizenships the day Bush was anounced as winner in the elections. Same people now praise him for handeling the country well during 11/9.
Without a extreme situation in the world, to distract the People of US, he would never get relected.
Talk about: Public opinion benefits for the sitting government
I respect what the US have done to make this world a somewhat more Peacefull world during the years.
But I say, should this war start without the support from UN, then the soldiers that died in Normandie and all over to free the world during both worldwars, died for nothing.
All that was gained is spolied and its back to the "the strongest rules" all over.
Crabofix
-
Im having trouble understanding why UN backing is necessary for action, or important in the minds of some.
The US will field 90% of the troops, 90% of the money, and 90% of the total effort. Why dont we get 90% of the decision making ability?
Such has been the case in almost every major UN sponsored action since its inception.
What others outside this country percieve as egotistical, "take over the world" attitutde, we see our resources and money being used by the UN for aims that we may not always agree with and the first time we see a threat to our own security, the public outcry against action is strong.
All we're asking for is a little respect. The "World Policeman" description is fine on the surface, but if you look at it a little closer, the behavior from other nations fits this bill perfectly.
When youre assaulted, robbed, or raped, the police are your best friend. But when you get caught speeding, stealing, or parking illegally, the Police are pigs, abusing authority, who do they think they are?
I guess what Im wondering is - why all the anti-US sentiment? It seems to me that people both inside, and outside the US are quick to forget what we've done in the past to better this world, and incapable of determining what the world would be like without the United States keeping people like Hitler, Malosevic (sp?), and Saddam in check.
The United States and the United Kingdom have brought stability to the world in the last 50 years - why are we now hated for it? Is it simply a case of other countries not wanting to have their own policies dictated by the US/UK?
Without the political and military action of the US/UK during the latter half of the 20th century, the Middle East would be a constant Jewish/Muslim war, Pakistan and India would both be glass, South Korea wouldnt exist, Africa would be a warzone, Eastern Europe would be a mercenaries paradise, and Western Europe would still be rebuilding after WWII.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
[url]Ya know I backed out of a bet with Toad that the United States would go completely insane and attack anyway.. I might’ve won that bet that no, calmer heads would prevail.
Although I don't favor any US action without UN SC sanction, I'm still of the opinion that moving 6 CV battle groups, 200,000 ground troops and lots of airplanes into the area means the die is case.
If you would like to accept that first wager, I'm still willing to offer it.
You in?
-
too bad they didnt fire on one of the U2's
it'd made things so much simplier...........
-
The U.S. and U.K. only need a de facto UN backing for the invasion of Iraq. Even if France vetos the resolution, as long as the U.S. and U.K. have a majority of the Security Council members vote yes, then that gives them de facto approval for the invasion. The U.S. and U.K. can then claim that they did indeed have the backing of the U.N., despite a veto from France.
You sure about that Akak? Want to provide a cite?
-
the league of nations will never vote for war with iraq
peace in our time
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
The U.S. and U.K. only need a de facto UN backing for the invasion of Iraq. Even if France vetos the resolution, as long as the U.S. and U.K. have a majority of the Security Council members vote yes, then that gives them de facto approval for the invasion. The U.S. and U.K. can then claim that they did indeed have the backing of the U.N., despite a veto from France.
You sure about that Akak? Want to provide a cite?
I don't want to answer for him, but I will.
I don't believe he was saying it would be justified in the UN's eyes if this happened, I think he meant we'd be able to say:
"Hey, the majority wanted action, screw France, they're idiots anyway."
-
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration believes that it is one vote shy of having nine of 15 votes needed on a U.N. Security Council resolution that sets a Monday deadline for Iraqi compliance, a senior U.S. State Department official said, and officials are focusing diplomatic energies on Mexico and Chile to secure their backing.
Better hurry and get your bet down, 10Bears.
-
CNN-Rules of the 15-member Security Council require nine votes to adopt a resolution. If one of the five permanent members -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia or China -- votes "no" on a resolution -- even one supported by the other 14 nations -- that single vote kills the proposal.
So far, four members -- the United States, Britain, Spain and Bulgaria -- have said they would support the new resolution. Five others -- France, Russia, China, Germany and Syria -- have indicated they oppose it. On Monday, France and Russia said they would veto the resolution.
The remaining six members -- Chile, Mexico, Guinea, Angola, Cameroon and Pakistan -- have been the subject of intense lobbying by the five major powers. But those efforts appeared to have had limited results.
Pakistani Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali said he has been urged by members of his political party and the Cabinet that his nation should abstain when the Security Council votes.
Er... are we reading from the same news source Toad? That doesn't look like only one vote shy to me..
As far as the other bet, would you be willing to put a time frame limit on the assult?.. If they don't attack by June... I win..
Martlet, that's not what Akak was saying at all..
Answer is in above quote by CNN.
I am 10Bears... Whooper of Toad
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Im having trouble understanding why UN backing is necessary for action, or important in the minds of some.
The US will field 90% of the troops, 90% of the money, and 90% of the total effort. Why dont we get 90% of the decision making ability?
When youre assaulted, robbed, or raped, the police are your best friend. But when you get caught speeding, stealing, or parking illegally, the Police are pigs, abusing authority, who do they think they are?
If you dont know what the UN is and why it is, I will not explain it to you: sorry.
You want 90% of decision making? (Why, because you are US and dont pay your fees to UN?) Why would something that the US wanted to do and pay for, be handled diffrent then if Swden wanted to attack Norway and pay for it? Would it be more legitimated because you provide the troops and money?
Yes, you guys have made a good job in many cases, being the "World-Police".
But also Failed in many others.
Crabofix
-
Wow! Is toad whooping legal? Is it harmful to kittens? If so, I could hardly condone it with a clear conscience>
kbman
-
The UK won't back out, it's just that they want to give Iraq until the 17th (correct date?) whereas the US want to go in straight away. If the US go in without the UK it's going drop the UK well and truely in the toejam at home. Blair will be out on a limb and would probably be fighting for his political career - whoever replaces him would probably back down against US therefore reducing the strong alliance between our countries... imo of course! ;)
-
The haste and constant looming threat of war is for Saddam, and Saddam only. It's called pressure, and if it works- he'll step down or have very little to no generals, tank commanders, pilots, soldiers, etc. to protect him.
The most successful operations are the ones where the show of force and constant threat that the end is near is all that is needed to end the conflict.
If Bush Jr. were so intent to invade Iraq, and fuk the rest of the world, we'd be in there 2 months ago. Keep that in mind.
-SW
-
Dowding NAILED it in my opinion. Bush began to blow this one almost right out of the starting gate and at almost every point between then and now.
-
Agreed Nash,
GWB has about as much diplomatic finesse as a bucking bronco in a glass menagerie. How's that for a mixed metaphor? :) The only person in this administration with any diplomatic skill whatsoever is Colin Powell and he's had his hands full trying to do damge control for Bush and Rumsfeld from the outset, at great cost to his credibility. Is anyone actually surprised about this?
kbman
-
10Bears, here's the wager that was offered.
First bet:
This war will happen. Time frame for bet to be determined between us. I think it will be this Spring, but desert weather may postpone it till fall. You think "cooler heads" will prevent this war. I don't. I'll wager you $45 it happens. If I win, you pay $45 to HTC to cover 3 months subscription of the one TAS member that is in the Special Forces of the USA and is currently "in theater". If you win, I send $45 to Ronald McDonald house and provide you either with a receipt or have them notify you it has been received in you name.
Now, make any changes you wish and I'll read it and either agree or make a change or two on my own.
In short, what bet to you want to make?
And, oh great whooper of Toad....... if you want to raise the dollar amount, just let me know. :D
-
Originally posted by Nash
Dowding NAILED it in my opinion. Bush began to blow this one almost right out of the starting gate and at almost every point between then and now.
But your belief is driven by political affiliation, had this been a Democratic pres, you would have backed him 100%, because the Democrats in this country are similiar to your socialist countries beliefs. Admit it and be gone with you.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I think 70% of Americans in a latest poll showed support for action with UN backing (Including me). If we don't get it, we most likely won't go in me thinks and will turn to more extentions, resolutions and the anti-war folks will continue a life of freedom, democracy while the Iraqi people continue to live under a dictorial threat. So what? This might as well be 1939 all over again as far as Isolationism goes...remember the majority of US did NOT want to get involved in war as well.
And as much as 10bears thinks that Rummy is a warmonger, let me quote him from yesterday:
".
“The goal is to not have a war,” he said. “The goal is to have the pressure be so great that Saddam Hussein cooperates. Short of that ... the goal is to have the capabilities of the coalition so clear and so obvious that there is an enormous disincentive for the Iraqi military to fight against the coalition and there’s an enormous incentive for Saddam Hussein to leave and spare the world a conflict.”
Don't hold your breath for any significant extensions of deadline, or aversions to action without UN backing, however... I've been sneakily suspicious (against my own opinions) that pressure (threat) on Saddam makes up about 90% of whats been going on. Makes no sense to me that we (whoever we may be) did not or have not taken the regime in Baghdad down already if this were not so. Look at it like this... we have had the firepower on station since the Gulf war, maybe not enough to roll up the regime, but easily enough to do more than nit-pik them in the war of attrition (slight) thats been happening since 91. I'm not saying Bush does NOT have the intention of invading, but, I do think the current buildup is a much more intense "or else" message than we've been sending for over a decade. In a nutshell... I believe what Rummy is saying "in this" instance.
-
Umm...Rip,
Get off your high horse for a second, Nash is from Canada. He didn't vote in the election. You can impune his political biases all you want to but you really need to use facts that actually have a bearing on the situation being discussed. Taking partisan potshots just makes you look ignorant, IMHO of course.;)
kbman
-
Originally posted by kbman
Umm...Rip,
Get off your high horse for a second, Nash is from Canada. He didn't vote in the election. You can impune his political biases all you want to but you really need to use facts that actually have a bearing on the situation being discussed. Taking partisan potshots just makes you look ignorant, IMHO of course.;)
kbman
Speaking of ignorance...read more closely Kbman. ;) You need to read the whole paragraph.
-
Originally posted by crabofix
1.) If you dont know what the UN is and why it is, I will not explain it to you: sorry.
2.) You want 90% of decision making? (Why, because you are US and dont pay your fees to UN?) Why would something that the US wanted to do and pay for, be handled diffrent then if Swden wanted to attack Norway and pay for it? Would it be more legitimated because you provide the troops and money?
3.) Yes, you guys have made a good job in many cases, being the "World-Police". But also Failed in many others.
1.) You obviously missed the point of the post - Im not looking for a lesson in what the UN is. I quite familiar with exactly what the UN is, whats it is supposed to do, and what its not doing.
2.) I want 90% effort to equal 90% authority. Without the US, what exactly would the UN be? Another paper tiger.
3.) Cant win em all, but try and imagine what the world would be like without us expending American lives, money, and ammunition to provide stability in the world. My guess is that German would be your first language.
-
Touche Rip,
But the subtext of my remark still stands. Don't you think it's better to argue the merits of someone's point of view with facts and opinions of your own and give everyone credit for being an independant, free thinking individual rather than attempting to dismiss them by association? It's the American way after all.;)
kbman
-
Originally posted by kbman
Touche Rip,
But the subtext of my remark still stands. Don't you think it's better to argue the merits of someone's point of view with facts and opinions of your own and give everyone credit for being an independant, free thinking individual rather than attempting to dismiss them by association? It's the American way after all.;)
kbman
I base it on historical reference, Kbman. Silence during the Clinton reign of warmongering is the proof. And, in true Democrat fashion, you bring OPINION to the table, not fact. Attack the person, not the facts, thats your party's motto.
-
Rip,
My party affiliation has nothing to do with my ability to think clearly or be critical of anyone I see fit anymore than does your own. We all bring our opinions to the table of political discourse and to state otherwise is just ludicrous and disingenuous. I happen to be a registered Democrat for the sole purpose of being able to vote in the primary election. I may even vote Republican in the next Mayoral election in Phila. because I have little respect for the present democratic occupant of that office. All this is absolutely immaterial to the discussion here and I think you are being hypocritical in your statement about Democrats and your assumptions of their support for Clinton. I sincerely don't think you can make a strong case for the diplomatic aplomb of our current administration no matter who you voted for.
kbman
-
KBman,
The subtext of my remark still stands. Don't you think it's better to argue the merits of someone's point of view with facts and opinions of your own and give everyone credit for being an independant, free thinking individual rather than attempting to dismiss them by claims of ignorance?
-
Rip,
You make my point precisely. My assessment of the diplomatic performance of this administration is based on my observations of their actions. You may disagree with that assessment and are perfectly justified in doing so. I didn't call anyone ignorant, i called them incompetent. I truly believe that and I challenge you to show me otherwise. Neither of us need resort to insults and invective in order to acomplish that objective. I hope you agree.:)
kbman
edit for spelling
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Maybe. He has out-manouevered an administration that has a piss-poor ability to play the diplomatic game and has benefitted hugely from the splits amongst the Western democracies. This whole thing should have been a done deal, before it even started rolling.
Blair has been put in an impossible position and he's in very hot water politically. And you know what? The US probably couldn't give a toejam. So much for that 'special relationship'.
Now let's see what we've achieved over the last 6 months:
1) Massive trans-atlantic splits between nations who should be working together
2) Large splits within the EU and with former SU republics
3) A Saddam Hussein who has gained reluctant support from those pretty much despise him
4) A pissing away of the anti-terrorist sentiment and unity post-911
"The Art of Diplomacy is letting people have your own way."
It's a shame that maxim wasn't given more regard. The bulldozer has no place in these affairs. While this mess certainly isn't the sole responsibility of the US, was a compromise such a difficult thing to achieve?
Well spoken
Regards Blitz
-
Rip, your assumption about the bias of my observations of Bush's handling of this affair, which you think is based on my country's "socialist beliefs" is wrong. For one thing, I'm in disagreement with probably a majority of my country's "socialist beliefs", and for two - despite appearances, our two countries really aren't that different from my perspective (having lived in NYC for about 5 years during and after college). To the average bloke like you and I, we're just not that different. So "be gone" with you. :)
I'll go one further and say that despite your repeated claims to vote the issues, you constantly come out in favour - almost 100% - along the Republican party line and bash those not in line.... how? Not by arguing the issues themselves, but almost exclusively by pointing out party line bias. How's that for a double standard?
A perfect example is right here in your rebuttal to kbman: "And, in true Democrat fashion, you bring OPINION to the table, not fact."
Regarding how I come to my view on the issues, kbman said it best: "My assessment of the diplomatic performance of this administration is based on my observations of their actions."
Regarding the issue itself, kbman also said it better than I did or could have: "GWB has about as much diplomatic finesse as a bucking bronco in a glass menagerie. Is anyone actually surprised about this?"
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
1.) You obviously missed the point of the post - Im not looking for a lesson in what the UN is. I quite familiar with exactly what the UN is, whats it is supposed to do, and what its not doing.
2.) I want 90% effort to equal 90% authority. Without the US, what exactly would the UN be? Another paper tiger.
3.) Cant win em all, but try and imagine what the world would be like without us expending American lives, money, and ammunition to provide stability in the world. My guess is that German would be your first language.
1, Good, then you must think its an old instituition, to be supersed
by your supreme Nation?
2, Your historic knowledge might lack some vital informations.
90% effort of what? Of UNs Budget? Of the worlds population?
Of all nuclear weapons? Of chemical/Biological weapon research?
Of all peacekeeping operations?
Where do you get 90% from?
I do know one thing: US owes UN Billons of dollars.
3, No you can´t win them all and the one you´r sure of not winning, or can´t gain from: you stay out of, good thinking.
So you guess my languege would be German? I think your wrong, it would be Russian.
crabofix
-
But Saur, it seems to me that the argument you're making is based on what you said in your 1st post:
"The US will field 90% of the troops, 90% of the money, and 90% of the total effort. Why dont we get 90% of the decision making ability?"
Couldn't Hussein use that same logic in his invasion of Kuwait?
-
Nash, I think Hussein had 100% of the decision making ability when he invaded Kuwait.
It's just that he was 100% wrong about what the reaction would be.
-
Originally posted by crabofix
I do know one thing: US owes UN Billons of dollars.
crabofix
Really? I "call". Let's see where you get your numbers and how it squares with this:
June 15, 1998
The United Nations Debt: Who Owes Whom?
by Cliff Kincaid
Cliff Kincaid, a veteran journalist, is author of "The United Nations Debt: Who Owes Whom?" recently published by the Cato Institute.
Last month it was revealed that the Clinton administration had sent $200,000 to the United Nations as "seed money" to help the UN put together a "standby" peacekeeping army. Your elected representatives didn't vote to spend the money that way. It wasn't money set aside by Congress for UN peacekeeping support. Rather, the White House "reprogrammed" money that had been appropriated by Congress for another purpose.
Furthermore, the contribution wasn't even credited against the billion-dollar "debt" that the United States supposedly owes the United Nations. In fact, it's just one of the many instances in which the Clinton administration has diverted billions of dollars from various federal agencies, especially the Department of Defense, to the UN. And virtually none of this support has been credited against the alleged U.S. debt.
Despite the fact that news articles routinely discuss the U.S. debt to the United Nations, no such debt exists. Assertions about this nonexistent debt ignore the billions of dollars of military and other assistance that has been provided to the world organization but neither properly credited nor reimbursed to the United States; they divert attention from the administration's policy of providing resources, personnel and equipment to the UN without the approval of Congress.
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), a member of the House National Security Committee, is doing his best to end this diversion of taxpayer money. Thanks to his work, Congress is now fully aware of administration attempts to usurp the legislative branch's constitutional role. Bartlett wants to prevent payment of any "debt" to the UN until all U.S. assistance to the world body is accounted for in the U.S.-UN financial relationship. He also wants the administration to quit the practice of providing the UN "voluntary" assistance worth billions of dollars without congressional approval.
The Clinton administration insists that Congress has an obligation to pay most -- but not all -- of the money the UN demands. It says the figure is close to $1 billion. True, Congress has withheld some money from the UN: some members believe we are being overcharged, and others want to force UN reform. But it's also true that the administration has been diverting additional billions of dollars to assist the UN without asking it to credit them against our "dues."
Bartlett cites a Congressional Research Service report that found that the United States paid more than $11 billion for international peacekeeping efforts between 1992 and 1997. Although the report didn't specify how much of that money had been counted as U.S. "dues" to the UN, the figure could be as low as $1.8 billion. That leaves about $9 billion worth of what the administration calls "voluntary" international peacekeeping assistance. But the $9 billion only covers assistance provided by the Department of Defense. Other federal agencies have also been ordered by the administration to support the UN, bringing the sum of uncredited payments to perhaps $15 billion.
The $1.8 billion figure counted as U.S. "dues" to the world body derives from a 1996 General Accounting Office report on U.S. costs in support of UN-authorized "peace operations" in places like Haiti, Somalia and Rwanda during the previous three years. The figure represents the State Department's share of the costs of those operations. That is the budget from which the U.S. share of UN peacekeeping operations has traditionally been funded. Overall, the GAO found that the costs reported by U.S. government agencies for support of UN operations in those areas of the world was over $6.6 billion and that the UN had reimbursed the U.S. $79.4 million "for some of these costs." That leaves about $4.8 billion in what the administration calls "voluntary" assistance to the world body.
By refusing to pay the UN "debt," Congress would not only put a stop to the improper if not illegal practice of misappropriating funds to the UN; it would also acquire additional leverage for forcing tough reforms on that body. The latest UN scandal, uncovered by the New Yorker magazine, is that in 1994 Secretary General Kofi Annan, then director of peacekeeping, ordered UN troops in Rwanda not to intervene to stop a planned genocide campaign that took half a million lives. Annan, a veteran UN bureaucrat, has reacted to the controversy over his role in the genocide by blaming the United States for not doing more to save lives. It appears that much of our "voluntary" assistance to the UN for peacekeeping missions has been wasted.
U.S. Ambassador to the UN Bill Richardson insists that if Congress demands reimbursement or credit for all of this assistance, the UN might go bankrupt. In fact, the organization has accumulated a $15.5 billion pension fund; it even continues to pay a $102,000 annual pension to former secretary general Kurt Waldheim, who was exposed as a Nazi war criminal.
The United Nations won't go broke. Whether it should is another question.
That's from the CATO institute website.
So, let's see your information, please. Oh, btw, do you know the US percentage share of UN dues is? What percentage we pay compared to the other 180+ nations?
-
Nash, I think Hussein had 100% of the decision making ability when he invaded Kuwait.
It's just that he was 100% wrong about what the reaction would be.
90 percent, 100 percent, whatever.... I'm saying the *logic* is the same.
And thanks for also pointing it out.... Kind of the same *reaction* too. :)
-
Originally posted by Nash
And thanks for also pointing it out.... Kind of the same *reaction* too. :)
You're a bit ahead of yourself.
I don't think the true "reaction" is in yet. It may be a while, so get comfortable for the wait.
Saddam didn't get the true reaction to his invasion of Kuwait for quite a while.........
-
of course, yeah.... true.
-
Originally posted by Toad
So, let's see your information, please. Oh, btw, do you know the US percentage share of UN dues is? What percentage we pay compared to the other 180+ nations?
90%?,, my wild guess.
(Sorry TOAD, but I dont have time to do that kind of presentation
right now: But I will come back with one.)
Now if I understand the whole thing correctly, US is paying most of the money to UN and as a natural cause of this: US should be the only Nation that should have the right to make desitions in the Security Council? Infact it should be the only memeber of the Security Council?
Or maybe at least 90% of it?
Crabofix
-
Wrong guess, wrong assumption.
I look forward to your post.
-
BTW, 10Bears.... you picking up this wager too?
If they vote Friday, you could miss your opportunity to lose shortly afterwards. When does the moon go dark again?
-
But the subtext of my remark still stands. Don't you think it's better to argue the merits of someone's point of view with facts and opinions of your own and give everyone credit for being an independant, free thinking individual rather than attempting to dismiss them by association? It's the American way after all. Kbman
But your belief is driven by political affiliation, had this been a Democratic pres, you would have backed him 100%, because the Democrats in this country are similiar to your socialist countries beliefs. Admit it and be gone with you. Ripsnort
Wow, the pot's really calling the kettle black there Rip. You broadly paint anyone who has quastions about why we are fighting this war as a leftist, yet you gloss over people like:
Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52450-2003Jan27¬Found=true
The general who commanded U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War says he hasn't seen enough evidence to convince him that his old comrades Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz are correct in moving toward a new war now. He thinks U.N. inspections are still the proper course to follow. He's worried about the cockiness of the U.S. war plan, and even more by the potential human and financial costs of occupying Iraq.
or Gen . Anthony Zinni, former head of Central Command for U.S. forces in the Middle East, who has worked recently as the State Department's envoy to the region with a mission to encourage talks between Palestinians and Israelis. Zinni, a Purple Heart recipient who served in Vietnam and helped command forces in the Gulf War and in Somalia.
He also took issue with hawks in and around the administration who downplay the importance of Arab sentiment in the region. "I'm not sure which planet they live on," Zinni said, "because it isn't the one that I travel." And he challenged their suggestion that installing a new Iraqi government will not be especially difficult. "God help us," he said, "if we think this transition will occur easily."
Or former NATO commander Gen. Clark:
"If we go in unilaterally, or without the full weight of international organizations behind us, if we go in with a very sparse number of allies, if we go in without an effective information operation ... we're liable to supercharge recruiting for al-Qaida," Clark said.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/10/17/zinni/
or David Hackworth. The greatest living warrior, in my opinion and that of a few others.
Will Colin Powell stand tall?
© 2003 David H. Hackworth
While a bellicose North Korea belts out nuclear material for an assembly line of bombs, and al-Qaida keeps blowing up people, places and things from Afghanistan to Yemen, tens of thousands of American fighters and their supporters are pouring into the Persian Gulf region to take out Saddam. And from every quarter of Pax America, our commanders, not unlike their ancient Roman counterparts, say they need more toys and boys to cinch the accomplishment of their missions around a war-weary world where more than a million of our best and brightest are playing Supercop.
For example, our admiral running the Pacific wisely wants more forces to deal with the paranoids from Pyongyang in case they put steel and fire behind their words of war, while our general out in the Persian Gulf – counting the weeks before he clobbers Iraq – isn't happy that combat units have been cut from his order of battle. Meanwhile, his counterpart in Afghanistan wants more troops for peacemaking that gets hotter, messier and bloodier with the passage of each day. And the skippers responsible for homeland defense are rightfully complaining that the USA is being left high and dry without the men and material to handle the job.
A month ago, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld boldly said he could do it all. But it was no big surprise when Gen. Peter Pace, his Pentagon assistant, quietly refuted this assertion a few weeks later. Between the reserves and active-duty forces, the Pentagon can field only about 2.5 million effective fighters and supporters, which means we just don't have enough troops for all the missions currently on the Pentagon's military menu.
Despite the heavy activation of reservists and even the call-up of retired folks, many units today are badly stretched, and other units – especially reserve outfits – are far from good-to-go. Morale, the most essential factor in war, is not exactly over-the-top. Cooked books and ghost soldiers, along with failed social experiments, have left many units severely undermanned. A staggering number of soldiers, sailors and airmen have been unable to deploy overseas for reasons such as disability, discipline and dope problems, pregnancy and child-care issues.
The exact number is one of the Pentagon's most-guarded secrets. Perhaps Congress should ask?
We started down this mine-laden path more than a decade ago when the Pentagon's Paul Wolfowitz first advocated – to Bush-the-Elder and then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney – that the USA become the sole superpower and dominate the world. You know, steal a few lines from 1930s Germany with a good-guy "enlightened" democratic spin on the proposed New World Order. But Bush I turned his back on Wolfowitz's Greater Middle East Marshall-like plans, the Cold War ended, and our military muscle was ruthlessly whacked in half.
Then President Clinton delivered the body blow of political-correctness-run-amok that just about brought down what was left of a once-magnificent Desert Storm military force.
When Bush II got in the saddle, he bought into the NWO gospel according to Wolfowitz and a coterie of like-minded, draft-dodging superhawks – including Washington insider William Kristol – that containment, the strategy that brought the Soviets down, should be replaced by the NWO big stick, beginning with the democratization of Iraq.
But since none of these warmongers – who were of dying age for Vietnam but chose to escape-and-evade – has walked the walk, Colin Powell needs to draw on his been-there wisdom and authority and summon up the grit to tell Mr. Bush to slow down on Iraq, at least until we rebuild our military into a force capable of chewing what we've already bitten off. Or for sure the NWO doctrine will do unto Bush II what Vietnam did unto LBJ as our country sallies forth to rule the world.
Kristol told the New York Times that he lies awake at night worrying that something could go wrong with the war with Iraq. "Chemical weapons could be used against American troops," he says. "A biological weapon could be set off in America." I'm sure many of us lie awake at night, too, with the same terrible thoughts – including Robert McNamara, another unrestrained defense intellectual who never served in the trenches and whose similar abstract thinking fueled the Vietnam disaster.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30856
If these "liberals" "democratic lap dogs" "leftistist" and "hippies" question what's going on with this war then I am proud to stand in their company.
Charon
-
Where's cabby, saudaukar, john9001, Grunherz and Ripsnort now?
Or are these former generals and Pentagon experts just soft lefties?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Where's cabby, saudaukar, john9001, Grunherz and Ripsnort now?
Or are these former generals and Pentagon experts just soft lefties?
Huh? Oh - Im a little busy right now and thats a long post - Ill read up on the latest propaganda and get back to you Dowding.
Cover for me Rip?
-
The US will field 90% of the troops, 90% of the money, and 90% of the total effort. Why dont we get 90% of the decision making ability?
As one of the only three countries with troops there, the way our PM is carrying on..it would seem you're already making 90% of the decision making in this case.
Tronsky
-
For the record, General Schwarzkopf has changed his opinion since January:
Taken from the "Meet the Press" Transcript from Feb 9th
MR. RUSSERT: General Schwarzkopf, let me show you what you had said to The Washington Post two weeks ago and get the sense of your current thinking. “Norman Schwarzkopf wants to give peace a chance. The general who commanded U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War says he hasn’t seen enough evidence to convince him that his old comrades Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz are correct in moving toward a new war now. He thinks U.N. inspections are still the proper course to follow. He’s worried about the cockiness of the U.S. war plan, and even more by the potential human
and financial costs of occupying Iraq.”
Is that still your current thinking?
GEN. NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF: No, I don’t any so, not anymore. I think that given the information that’s come forward, particularly Colin’s presentation to the Security Council, I am sort of with the other 72 percent of the American people that said that I found it very compelling and I found it a very, very good rationale.
http://www.msnbc.com.edgesuite.net/news/870638.asp?cp1=1
Just something I noticed.
-Sik
-
Thanks Sikboy, it's encouraging that he feels more positive about the justification. He does still have doubts though about the end game, and he's not really retreating too much from his statements about Rumsfeld, though they are softened a bit.
MR. RUSSERT: Liberators or occupiers?
GEN. SCHWARZKOPF: No, that’s tough. Well, I think that for the large majority of people, we’ll be considered liberators—OK?—given the environment within. It really is a regime of terror and fear, and it has been a republic of fear—has been for a very long time. So I think by the majority of the people, we will be viewed as liberators.
On the second question, you know, that is very tough because it’s hard to believe that the Sunnis and the Shiites are going to get together because that’s a religious matter that has to be ironed out. And the Sunnis, who are the minority, know what happened when the Shiites took over Iran. And they’re going to be very, very concerned about that, as they well should be.
On the other hand, you have the Kurds to the north who have always wanted to be an independent republic. And there are a lot of nations in that part of the world that are very worried about the Kurds becoming an independent nation, not the least of which is Turkey. So it is going to be very tough for the three of them to get together and come up with a meaningful government that, in fact, can preside in Iraq.
GEN. SCHWARZKOPF: Yeah, pretty strong, I would say. I have had an awful lot of people within the Pentagon come to me and express their concerns with the way Secretary Rumsfeld was treating this armed services. And, you know, Napoleon once said—I think it was Napoleon who said, “You’ve got to be very careful of war because it’s so exciting that you may grow to love it.” And that’s what we don’t need. OK? We need sound military action based upon sound military advice, and I don’t think you can disregard your armed services and your service chiefs and that sort of thing.
Now, I will confess to you that the rhetoric that I was hearing, you know, a month ago with regard to the infighting between the military within the Pentagon and Rumsfeld and his people has died down a great deal and you haven’t heard much of it lately. But, you know, we do have to be careful about-we have had in the past people who have gone to war with us and they’ve had wonderful ideas of all the things we should do as long as they weren’t the people being shot at. And it’s very, very important that you use your military expertise, your military planners, people who’ve been trained for this for years and years and years, and use all of these capabilities and don’t just run off on your own. And that’s what concerned me. Now, I have seen less of that since the time that I made that comment. And I have seen much less of that now than I have seen before.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon He does still have doubts though about the end game
Charon
True, but saying that it will be difficult is not the same as saying that it shouldn't be done. Anyone who says this is going to be easy, is selling something (most likely policy lol).
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Toad
Wrong guess, wrong assumption.
I look forward to your post.
Ok, A fast one
Budget of Un:
USA 25 % 1 permanent seat in security council
EU 37% 2 permanent seats (UK, France)
Japan 20% No seat permanent.
Peacekeeping operations by UN
USA 27%
Crabofix
-
Now logically explain to me why one country should have to pay 25% of the dues when there are 187 (I think) countries that should be paying dues.
Then logically explain to me why one country should be paying 27% of the peacekeeping costs?
Then lecture me again about American Schools, lack of health care and prescription drug care for our seniors.
the United States paid more than $11 billion for international peacekeeping efforts between 1992 and 1997
Wonder how many US seniors could have had their medications for free in those years?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I don't want to answer for him, but I will.
I don't believe he was saying it would be justified in the UN's eyes if this happened, I think he meant we'd be able to say:
"Hey, the majority wanted action, screw France, they're idiots anyway."
Yep.
Ack-Ack
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Martlet, that's not what Akak was saying at all..
Answer is in above quote by CNN.
I am 10Bears... Whooper of Toad
Actually 10bears, that is exactly what I was saying, Martlet just added the French are idiots for color.
Ack-Ack
-
Originally posted by crabofix
Ok, A fast one
Budget of Un:
USA 25 % 1 permanent seat in security council
EU 37% 2 permanent seats (UK, France)
Japan 20% No seat permanent.
Peacekeeping operations by UN
USA 27%
Crabofix
Who basically funds the U.N.? Last time I checked, the U.S. is the largest contributor of the U.N. and without our cash the U.N. wouldn't have kept afloat.
Ack-Ack
-
Originally posted by Toad
Now logically explain to me why one country should have to pay 25% of the dues when there are 187 (I think) countries that should be paying dues.
Then logically explain to me why one country should be paying 27% of the peacekeeping costs?
Then lecture me again about American Schools, lack of health care and prescription drug care for our seniors.
Wonder how many US seniors could have had their medications for free in those years?
Edit. you get a lot of medication for 4$
You are a bright guy TOAD, you just check out how much, for example Sweden is paying.
Remember that we are only 8 millions. Then make some math.
I give you a hint, we pay 0,89% of our BNI.
I pay more then 50% (56% to be exact) tax as the rest of us here. (I am pretty sure I pay a slight more then you.)
(Sorry Toad, that I cant put 100% effort into this discussion, I am on my way out on a tour and can´t put as much time into research as I want to. But I will try my best)
Crabofix
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Who basically funds the U.N.? Last time I checked, the U.S. is the largest contributor of the U.N. and without our cash the U.N. wouldn't have kept afloat.
Ack-Ack
Sure its not a myth? check again, to be sure.
Crabofix
-
I am sure, if US would nt put 70 billon$ into a war, another 70 billion to rebuild the country they will bang up: You guys would have a very good Healthcare and Schoolsystem.
I am saying it again: I am gratefule that US are doing what they are doing. But nothing gives them the right to stand above international agrements.
When they dash towards Bagdad from Kuwait, they have to pass the, by UN Supervised and protected, "demilitarized-zone".
What will happend if they are fired upon, from UN forces protecting the Area?
(Of course it would´nt happend, cause UN troops dont dare to stay, so they already left the area)
But just think the thought?
Nope, send a couple of assasins to take him out and the whole thing is over with.
(Oh, I forgot, then you could´nt goverment the area and take control of what was gonna happend to the oil, stupid me)
crabofix
-
Originally posted by crabofix
Sure its not a myth? check again, to be sure.
Crabofix
Ratio of assessed contributions to the United Nations in 2003
USA - 22%
Japan - 19.516%
Germany - 9.769%
France - 6.466%
UK - 5.536%
Italy - 5.065%
Canada - 2.558%
Spain - 2.519%
Other Countries - 26.71%
So as you can see the United States was the single largest contributer to the United Nations. So the only myths are the ones in your mind.
Just in case you're still in doubt, here's a nice pretty graph for your enjoyment.
(http://www.jinjapan.org/stat/stats/images/dpl11.gif)
Ratio of assassed contributions to the UN (http://www.jinjapan.org/stat/stats/04DPL11.html)
Ack-Ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Ratio of assessed contributions to the United Nations in 2003
So as you can see the United States was the single largest contributer to the United Nations. So the only myths are the ones in your mind.
Just in case you're still in doubt, here's a nice pretty graph for your enjoyment.
Ack-Ack
good job, I like graphs.
Now, just devide the persons that lives in each country and we will get a slightly diffrent graph.
Or you can put together all Eus contributions and make a graph and put up against US. We are a union:D
Crabofix
-
Now you're scratchin like a cat that dumped on a tile floor Crabofix.
Face it..... we pay more than anyone else. Per capita? Maybe not, but the UN is on a "by nation" basis, no "per capita".
-
Originally posted by crabofix
Nope, send a couple of assasins to take him out and the whole thing is over with.
crabofix
Feel free, don't wait for us. I'm sure the Swedes have some fine snipers. They'll blend into the population as well as we would, too.
Oh....... don't forget, he uses doubles. 8-10 of 'em at last report. Make sure you get the right guy, ok?
Good luck!
-
Originally posted by Toad
Now you're scratchin like a cat that dumped on a tile floor Crabofix.
Face it..... we pay more than anyone else. Per capita? Maybe not, but the UN is on a "by nation" basis, no "per capita".
"
The budget for the two years 2000-2001 is $2,535 million. The main source of funds is the contributions of Member States, which are assessed on a scale approved by the General Assembly.
The fundamental criterion on which the scale of assessments is based is the capacity of countries to pay. This is determined by considering their relative shares of total gross national product, adjusted to take into account a number of factors, including their per capita incomes.
In addition, countries are assessed -- in accordance with a modified version of the basic scale -- for the costs of peacekeeping operations, which stood at around $2 billion in 2000. "
http://www.un.org/aboutun/basicfacts/unorg.htm
Theres a lot of things in the equation, inclueding "per capita"
Otherwise Our (sweden) place as 15th bigest contributor in the world would´nt be that great, now would it?
just trying to prove that US does not pay more then anyone else.
Infact, theres countrys that pay more.
Crabofix
-
Wow...they must use different math in Europe.
Stringer
-
Originally posted by Toad
Feel free, don't wait for us. I'm sure the Swedes have some fine snipers. They'll blend into the population as well as we would, too.
Oh....... don't forget, he uses doubles. 8-10 of 'em at last report. Make sure you get the right guy, ok?
Good luck!
Sure. Hard nut to crack.
But locking at the astimated coasts (70 billion$) and the astimated lost lives (260,000) itshould be worth at least a try.
Crabofix
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Wow...they must use different math in Europe.
Stringer
You think so?
So the fact that Asami in Japan pays nearly 7$ and Bobby Lee in Us pays 3,50$ has nothing to do with it?
Crabofix
-
As the UN means Nations...no I don't.
If it said U as per capita N then you might have a point....but as it stands now, you don't.
The fact remains that as a nation the US bears more of the cost than any other nation on this planet, period.
You can try to slice and dice it all you want, it doesn't change that one undisputable fact.
Or you can try that weak EU argument again, but then again, the EU is not a single Nation is it? That "union" sure isn't United.
Stringer
-
Originally posted by Stringer
As the UN means Nations...no I don't.
Stringer
Ok, You win, I surrender. US pays the most and should have more of a saying in UN.
After being married to a American woman for quite some time, I´ve learned when to yield.
Crabofix
-
LOL Crabofix,
I'm married to an Italian women, and hence have learned the very same lesson!!
I don't mean to imply that the US should have more say at all.
It a simple fact that, as a nation, we pay a heavier burden than the other nations.
I would like to see the other security council nations, at the least, pay the same amounts.
Stringer
-
Originally posted by Stringer
LOL Crabofix,
Stringer
You just wait a little, Stringer, she might go to bed any moment now :D
Crabofix
-
When foreign aid contributions are being considered, the fact that U.S. defense expenditures are so large contributes tremendously to world stability IMO. Any potential aggressor must consider and reject the cost of contending for Number 1. Can you imagine the sorts of arms races that would erupt should the United States disarm or disappear? Other governments would be looking at trillions in new expenditures. Japan would probably have to go nuclear, hmm mebbe build some aircraft carriers too. Would Germany feel the need for nukes as well?
The United States defense capability puts a crimp in any dictator's dream of large-scale international aggression. How much is that worth on a year-to-year basis?
-
USA - 22%, Japan - 19.516%
Ah, OK. Now I see who's doing the paying.
-
freakin accounting games.
can i play?
i kinda liked the 'EU' argument. Yep.. the EU should funtion like a true UNION. 11 votes for, 3 against. France, Germany, Belgium... have a nice steaming democratic cup of shut the diddly up.
yer out-voted.
carry on.
-
Rasker, it is probebly worth a whole lot.
Still its a little bit shortminded to sell out systems of massdestruction to crazy dictators.
crabofix
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
freakin accounting games.
can i play?
i kinda liked the 'EU' argument. Yep.. the EU should funtion like a true UNION. 11 votes for, 3 against. France, Germany, Belgium... have a nice steaming democratic cup of shut the diddly up.
yer out-voted.
carry on.
Dear hangtime, Eu dos´nt have a permanent post in the security council, France have, Germany can not put down a veto, neither can Belgium.
But just cash up some money to the Pakestenians and Guinea, Gawd knows the names of the others, and you will have a complete democratic decition in the spirit of the freedom loving USA. A little corrupted, but still....
crabofix
-
assuming that France fairly represents the EU on the security council..
Pakestenians and Guinea
wow.. you let those guys into the EU before latvia?
-
Oh, by the way, throw in a couple of boxes with Vodka and you might have russion voting your way to
-
diddly the russians.
i'd rather bribe a ukranian.
at least they'll stay bought.
-
Hangtime
Suffring from that ol´war wouned or are you naturally hazed?
-
kiss any krauts lately?
-
Don´t sit there with a turtle head, go and get it over with.
-
obtuse commentary and tact are not my strong points, crabofix.
if we're gonna get right down to insults, lemme save yah two or three posts.
kiss my ass. 'turtle' and all.
oh, and have a nice day.
-
I'm sure the French minister didn't offer any inducements on his recent trip through Africa.
Only the US does that stuff, right?