Miko2d, probably you dont want listen to me, since i am not so exact and professional like Toad (S!), and what i am going to express are only my opinions and percievings.
But i have to say something.
Originally posted by miko2d:
StSanta,
You are absolutely wrong. US public despises the UN and US politicians despise the UN and would not be caught dead cooperating with UN lest they lose their votes.
Many people argue for leaving the UN because it costs US money and gets us involved into somebody elses troubles. That is why the Congress did not pay the membership dues for a while.
We think that UN is an inefficient bureauctratic organization. That it's anti-capitalist and anti-western. That because of it we get dragged into stupid local disputes where out soldiers die and then get blamed afterwards. That it costs us a lot of money that go towards the purposes hostile to US and western way of life. We do not feel like we in any way control UN despite all the money it costs us.
When you say "we" you are talking about the common US citizen, correct?
The perception about the UN for other country's citizen is, for good % of them, the opposite, with US controlling and deciding where and when and what, and defending the western capitalistic country interests, funny indeed.
As for NATO, NATO is US when it coms to fighting and it is our european friends when it comes to defending (with an odd Kuwait thrown in from time to time).
NATO is a mutual defence treathy, in the latter times forced to be a more aggressive think, but is a common responsability to send troops and share the actions.
Pitfuly the US, for their bigger and stronger contributions (as the unique real superpower involved in the treathy), feel the right to control the actions of a pact intended to be between equals (and somethink similar happens in UN).
European countries, not us had problems with refugees flooding their borders. If Milosevich instead of driving people out closed the borders and killed everybody inside, the surrounding NATO countries would not have raised a cry and not asked US to help. Just like they do not care about millions dying in Africa (and neither do we). They need our help because they are impotent militarily. The only armed force in Europe worth mentioning (in spirit if not in numbers) is Brits, and they do not even border with Yugoslavia! Why should they care?)
Well, since i was here, and was interested to the happenings, i want to give you some informations.
When this kosovo think start, (remembering Serayevo), big numbers of citizen ask for a quick and strong intervention to avoid to repeat the same situation.
But the UN (meaning in this case the US), was'nt interested in this internal affair and clear violation of human rights.
Because of the strong public opinion pressure some of the EC nations try to found a solution using the EC structure of armyes coordination (not NATO, i dont remember the acronyme).
At this point the US suddenly awake (EC doing somethink without me?
), and the US medias become full of reports of the atrocities.
US argued this kind of operation will be better suited for the NATO (where they have right to speak
).
And the intevention begin WITHOUT the UN.
After some protest from, and some new financial aid to Russia, the UN take the risolution, LOL.
Realpolitik in action.
What's a big deal - some refugees? We get over 500,000 of just illegal mexicans coming across the border every year and it is not a problem. They are honest, hardworking people and you can never have too many of those. Of course here we are much more tolerant of aliens than europeans. A couple of milions of gratefull, unspoiled, hardworking Kosovars, albanians, croatians would be great citizens for them. Especially considering that the population of most developed European countries is dropping. But of course, with their socialist economies they have huge unemploynent already even in the middle of unprecedented world-wide economic boom!)
Worldwide economic boom, what a BS.
Is only US boom, but obviously for you US IS the world.
For you a nation privatizing everithink, cutting the social wellfare with an axe, is socialist?
Did'nt know US was a socialist country.
We have a media 12% of unenployement (caused for big part by the exterior investment and the privatizations), and the terrible think is:
In southern Italy, where this refugees usually enter, we are about 25% (reaching 50% in age 20-35) of unemploiment, do you think we need workers?
Not saying the best work they can found is in the big criminal organizations.
More, lot of them claim the status of refugees, this meaning, we have to prepare a place where they can stay, and feed them at OUR expences, as they dont work.
We (USA) are a prosperous country and if we need something from the rest of the world, it is not to exploit someones resources and people, but find market for our products. For that we need other countries rich, peacefull and prosperous, so they could afford our products (including AH). BTW, do not try to blame us for pushing our products on everybody - we have a trade deficit. So we drive the economies of the rest of the world by buying their stuff!)
So never rise to your mind the consequence of your statement, you need countries rich (but with weak economy), peaceful (except the ones where you have to sell weapons) and prosperous (but not indipendent).
We care about our municipality, state and far third - the federal government and the president. As for foreign policy - most people could not care less.
miko
You included.
"I am in my house, if world is burning who care?"
knock knock....
"who's at the door?"
Naso
[This message has been edited by Naso (edited 09-28-2000).]
