If you seriously watch the proceedings at the UN on most any serious subject it is nothing more than a bitch fest that in the end, satisfies very little and where they take no action other than some grand pronouncement which everyone then ignores. How is that productive?

Okay Merc. Enough is enough! Now I must agree with you TWICE in the same thread. Don't you think you've gone too far?

You forgot the bit, Just look at FRANCE!

I dexterously omitted the parts I didn't like. Just because I agree it doesn't mean that I must always admit it.

The original 13 states of the USA got together because it was in their interest to do so.
There are some reasons that it is in the interests of everyone - or at least the large majority - for the whole planet to get together in a similar way.
The most obvious examples are environmental: the current political farce that is crippling attempts to control carbon dioxide emissions shows how the present political situation just cannot handle global issues. Or look at unsustainable fishing quotas, other kinds of pollution, China's artificial currency value screwing the rest of the world's trade figures ...
For some things, we need a world government that can make good decisions and then enforce them.

And I agree, BTW, that in the main the UN is an unproductive bitch fest that is rarely capable of making a good decision and when it does, cannot enforce it.
The WHO has a few victories to its credit, and some peace-keeping operations have helped: Cambodia for one.
I'd never say the UN is doing a great job and we ought to keep it just as it is. Just that some things need a world government and it's too important to give up on.

But no need to worry, Merc (and I'm sure you're not). The USA formed out of the common interest of resisting an external foe, and the UN formed in the wake of a disastrous war. I don't see a real world government appearing until either after WWIII, or the appearance of hostile extra-terrestrials. Massive environmental melt-down might do the trick, but even that I doubt. We'd be too busy squabbling over the bones.

Well the formation of our country is not really the same issue, not to mention that it happened over 200 years ago...

And for the later paragraph, I hope you are right. We will never form a "World Government" IMHO.. the EU can barely get it together.

They came together as a means of self-preservation from outside threats. They knew that none of the 13 states could defend itself from a foreign invasion without the help of the other 12. Trade and economics are part of the package in dealing with outside entities. So until such time as Captain Kirk comes to us, there is no purpose in having a centralized global government. You see, human nature abhors not having something to fight against. So until we have an identifiable enemy with a face who comes from outer space... humans aren't going to submit to a global government.

Also, AD keeps going back to Democracy and how the US is undemocratic because we don't submit to the great and glorious will of the UN. Get it straight - the US is a democratic republic formed for the purpose of protecting the persons and the interests of the people found within her borders. National interests come first. We should strive to be good global citizens whenever possible, but when the immediate interests of the US do not align with some UN or international plan, it needs to be perfectly clear - the primary responsibility of the US government is to her citizens.

You can argue over whether a course of action is in the US best interests or not from a variety of angles - and that is good and healthy - but to believe that the US should submit to a course of action that is counter to our interests for the sake of "democracy"... not so much.

Well stated. I tend to get riled up at anything to do with the UN, having participated is some of their BS.

yeah, i've noticed. i was still active when they started court martialling guys who wouldn't put the Blue Beret on. Stupid as it sounds I never really thought much about politics before that time.

I remember it well. Mine was red.

I had a conversation with a guy last night. The U.S. is a pretty bitchen place. People get into storage connexes, in places like Shanghai, with some food and water, and hope they make it alive to the States. Wow. I don't think that anyone in the States is getting into a storage connex and hoping to make it alive to China or North Korea, or
Cuba.

People risk their lives in the desert every single day of every single year hoping to make it to the U.S. alive.

What a wonderful place we have here. What a tradition we have for being the melting pot that we are. While people in the wold are grinding their axe with our current foreign policy...people are still risking their lives in droves in the hope of living here.

I think about that from time to time. It keeps me grateful for what we have.

The right answers for these issues are obviously not easy. They are worth working out, in the best interest of all concerned. We are just coming to the same conclusion that the Native Americans came to? Holy shit!! These people are coming and they ain't gonna stop!!! Yep, they sure are. If we manage it right, they will certainly add to our prosperity, thereby brining more to our great nation.

Most people grind their axe with our foreign policy because we exploit countries, making their people poor, and creating a wealth disparity that people will risk their lives to get on the top with.

Honestly, if our corporations and military pulled out of poor third world countries that people are risking their lives to leave from, they would be much better off.

the ones who were still alive and still had means for continued survival just might be. the dead ones might not be too appreciative though.

I agree, and the sooner we cut off all funding of those nations through our government the better for us as well. We need pull out all our aid, all government handouts, all of it. And then there is a list of countries where we should cut off all trade. Great idea.

The trade thing can get really stupid (Cuba for example), but if you are going to pull aid, pull out everything and let them control their own goddamn resources.

Sounds good to me. Then we can pull back and see who really give a shit.

Sure, that's mature..."I'm gonna take my marbles...and go home!"

I think PH's point is they are not our marbles.

What? You are starting to sound like a college student...LOL.:rolleyes:

There are few victims as far as nations go in this. We are all in bed with whom ever we are by choice. The values, and behavior of these so called "third world" people create this wealth disparity with or with us. We are not that powerful. If a U.S. corporation does bad business in the third world, I agree it's bad business....It takes two to tango.

On the whole the U.S. government, while doing it's best to look after what is currently perceived as our best interest internationally, does not usually act in a malicious manner. With the exception of Iraq, and Afghanistan, The U.S. military is in these third world nations by request, their major mission is not direct action, but rather assisting at the behest of the foreign government in their internal defense.

When asked by a foreign government for assistance by our professional military men and women with their internal defense, I would not send you pierce. I do not mean that as a put down, or insult. I don't think you are the best qualified for that job. It does not appear that you have and are fitting yourself to accomplish that job in this world. That's fine. So it is fitting and proper, that we send a professional in the requested area. Because you don't like the current outcome in Iraq, we should pull our much need assistance out of other countries? I don't think so.

http://cellar.org/2005/koreanight.jpg

Here is the nighttime sky of two countries.

Three generations ago, both were desperately poor third-world countries.

One of them got US military, aid, attention and a TON of corporate business.

The other got nothing.

Where would you rather live?

I'll take the one with electricity, but thats just me.

No, no, definitely North Korea. I'd get lots of sleep, uninterrupted by electricity, and with no food, my diet would be a cinch.

Its amazing how the light ends exactly on that line.

UT, stop drawing attention away from points. One, South Korea is not one of the countries I was talking about how we exploit, so I don't see how that has to do with anything. Also, you are comparing it to North Korea, which is a joke.

Get the corporations out of Africa and see what happens.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know you only wanted to point out perceived failures of US involvement, and not utterly massive, extreme successes. You should have been more clear in the first place.

There is more than one type of involvement. I was focusing on one type, and you showed an example of the other. I went with Merc to more of an extreme, but I don't mind foreign intervention if it mutual, but if it is a one way relation, then I have to criticize.

What is the "other type" of involvement? when you say

South Korea was a third world country that people risked their lives to leave from. Our military involvement there was followed by corporate involvement there. They are now becoming rich.

We exploited the hell out of them. We used them, and continue to use them, as a pawn to place and protect American military interests in that sector of the world. They were a source of tremendous cheap labor for a few decades. And then, because they were a strong people to start, they quickly started to figure it out for themselves. Now they are rich and becoming a power all their own, a center of the world of computing and electronics that is seriously rivaling Japan.

But it never would have happened without that first step up.

Countries *hope* they need to be as exploited as South Korea. The problem with the African countries is that they are not exploited enough. Being "exploited" by the US is like a teenager being "exploited" by working at MacDonalds. Here's a shit job for shit pay dispensing pieces of shit. But as a "starter job", it's the one teaching teenagers to dress decently, show up on time, deal with the general public, deal with managers, etc... it's the job that teaches you what it's like to have a job. If Africa could just get a job at MacDonalds, they might be able to get their foot in the door for a better deal elsewhere.

Thats why people are blowing our troops up in Iraq?

You are giving the recipe of success for a single type of culture that does not exist all throughout the world. If a country wants to be a free market economic society, then I could care less, but if a country doesn't want to be free market, the US shouldn't play any role in forcing it to become one. From what I've heard, many Iraqis have resisted the free market aspect of the US rebuilding and if we don't respect that, we will have bigger situations in the future. It is their choice, it is not our place to force a country to become free market.

Also, countries can become successful without free market systems so it isn't the only option.

Come on man, that is a really stupid narrow minded statement. You really believe we are in Iraq because of business interests and an attempt to exploit the Iraqi economy?

Explain why the largest embassy in the world is the US Embassy in Baghdad. Explain why the reasons for invading Iraq so strongly correspond to the Project for New American Century where America must protect "OUR" oil and where America must do anything necessary (including Pearl Harboring of Russia, India, or Germany) to keep the US as #1. But somehow the invasion had no basis in exploiting the Iraq economy and resources even when Iraq was a threat to no one?

Explain why we are in Iraq when Iraq was never a threat and when the smoking gun (always necessary to justify a war) does not exist? Explain the many corporations reaping massive profits with no-bid contracts (ie Haliburton) that are also closely aligned to top George Jr administration staff?

Since we created a war in Iraq for none of the Military Science 101 reasons that justify war, then why are we there? TheMercenary does not answer that question; only makes accusations. Every action to get American into war with Iraq was not justified by a 'smoking gun'. But then those who promoted the lie also defined a need to protect "OUR" oil - a political agenda.

Supportive actions of the events are not machinations planned by it. Stop with the conspiracy theory BS.

PS. You never took Military Science 101, I did. :D

You could have fooled me. I don't even see evidence of a college degree. But I do see you posting your own pictures and labeling them as me. I guess I was supposed to be honored?

TheMercenary. All joking aside, you demonstrate little grasp of military science. Otherwise you would have seen "Mission Accomplished" in 2002 as the complete fiasco and justified only by lies. Curious that I, using principles from Military Science and repeatedly quoting them, accurately described "Mission Accomplished" in 2002 as unjustified. Where were you when that fiasco was made so obvious by basic military doctrine?

Your grasp of military science seem to correspond to a claim by Pres Cheney. Cheney claims to be a great military leader in the image of Patton, Bill Sherman, and Epaminondas. He also advocated a war that violates basic military principles. Did you see reality back in 2002 or did you also have that minimal grasp of basic military doctrine?

Well if Military Science justified an American invasion, then tell us, what is this military doctrine that justified that war in 2002 or today? Do you also, like Cheney, view yourself with that same grasp? If so, then explain the military doctrine that justified an invasion of Iraq. You haven't. Here is your opportunity to prove you learned Military Science 101. Show us how "Mission Accomplished" is justified by those principles of MS.

Meanwhile, posting big word does not mask one glaring fact. TheMercenary never explains why that political agenda advocated by Project for a New American Century, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfovitz, Feith, etc is somehow separate from their effort to create war. As Isikoff and Corn note, "Mission Accomplished" was justified by lies. But the real agenda was (according to these and other founding members of PNAC) about securing "OUR" oil - and other similar objectives. Why the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad? The American intend in Iraq is that clear. We (George Jr) intended to fix Iraq to our liking.

So do you, TheMercenary, have the same "long view" that Cheney also claimed to have? The same "long view" defined by Project for a New American Century? Or do you continue to post only by criticizing? Based upon everything posted by TheMercenary, you have no military science (officer) training other than what is taught to Privates.

Show me. Show us how "Mission Accomplished" is justified by basic military doctrine. TheMercenary never once has.

I think it would be stupid to rule it out. Also, they are attacking us more for the imperialistic part.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197

I don't disagree with what you say - I disagree with what you don't say because you're making an asumption that doesn't consider the international situation. Storage connexes aren't shipped exclusively to the U.S. yet many of those are also "occupied".

Nor do I think so either. However, there are a growing number of Americans who seek permanent residence in other countries around the world. There always have been. The reason they don't make their passage to their country of choice aboard "storage connexes" is because it isn't necesssary.

Again, I'm not critisizing what you say, only what you might presume.


And just WHAT desert are you speaking of? If I weren't so lazy I'd look up how many "people risk their lives in the desert every single day of every single year hoping to make it to" Europe "alive". But again, I'm not critizing what you say - just what you might like for us to assume.

The U.S. can't possibly be the "worst place on earth" to reside and I hope that no-one has said that it is. But what I think you're implying is that it might be the "best" place in the world to reside. That is a very unadvisable thing to assume.

But it could be that I'm entirely wrong and you're not implying anything more than what you've stated. In that case I appologize for my intervention.

I am in no way saying that business has not attempted to take advantage of goberment handouts during the gross dumping of money, any business in position to take such advantage would be stupid not to do so, it is called capitalism. But to imply, as tw has so many times, that we invaded because of business interests is patently ridiculous.

Let's compare your years of active service to mine and then see if I have any legitimate insight into the issue. In fact I have a number of college degrees thank you very much.:D

Ummm, no. It is not ridiculous. Cheney's pre-9-11 Iraq oil map is enough to keep it out of ridiculous teritory.

Not proven, perhaps not even likely, but not ridiculous.

We can't rule out the possibility, or even the probability, that some of the key perpetrators didn't have other agendas. That said, I doubt if the war was the result of a business oriented conspiracy.

I have never seen proof of such a map. I think it is ridiculous because most of the critical comments are drilled down to some large conspiracy theory about oil and Cheney hate and Haliburton and KBR and Bush hate. Every deployment that I ever went on, with a 24 notice, had KBR people on the ground in support. The contracts went way back into the 1990's. There was not a single company who did the specialty work that they did to support deployed troops. Not one. They cornered the markets on it and did so long before Bush. But because of Cheney's associations with the parent corp it gave fuel to the conspiracy theorists little minds. Funny how no one really gives a crap about the hundreds of Congressmen and women who have left office and moved right into a business job where they lobby or work for a business they supported and got earmarks for when they were in office. All the political hacks do it.

No they don't just the republicans - duh!:eyebrow:

About the motivation for invading Iraq, have you ever seen a Chinese tug-of-war?
There are four individuals, each pulling individually toward one of the four points of the compass. That is, all four are pulling in different directions. They are connected by a long rope going around all four in a big square. Each person has a chair about 5 feet beyond their reach from the starting point, which they try to reach and sit on.
It often happens that the group as a whole will move under the influence of TWO pullers, and thus move, eg, north-east, even though nobody was pulling north-east.
This is my favorite metaphor for how many political decisions get made. One lobby group wants to have a war but doesn't care where. Someone else wants to pressure Iraq but doesn't want a war. The result is a war against Iraq.
Multiply the complexity by about a hundred and that's about what happens.

Fascinating analogy zengum. I hadn't heard of that way of doing a tug-of-war before.

I saw it on TV once.
The most interesting thing is that when, say, North gets close to the chair, the angles of the pull mean that East and West will be pulling slightly southwards, thus adding a part of their force to South's efforts against North. Things get harder for North and they may be drawn back a little.
Ever see this happen in politics? One faction gets too far ahead and the others unite to pull them back?

Oh good God, all the time. The old 'my enemy's friend is my friend' attitude. Thing is, just like in the analogy, once you've succeeded in altering the direction of pull, that alliance becomes inconvenient and a new one emerges :P

Tw's slant is consistent. It's so consistent it's monomaniac. Monomaniacs have no friends.

He's not a military genius either, in fact he qualifies as something below a sophos moros in that field owing to want of experience. Yet still, he stubbornly believes we should pay attention to his opinion. What a marvel of denial.

We know better than to listen to you, tw. There is that in our experience and personal development that tells us you're blowing smoke.

We?

Ah, I was thinking royalty, over-blown Executive branch and all that.

Maybe he has a mouse in his pocket or he speaks French. We?

Does anyone else find themselves wondering how UG speaks IRL? His sentence structure is so convoluted and sidetracked by impressive sounding words that half the time I don't know what the hell he's on about.

Neither does he.

I agree - I mentioned something about this in another thread. I can imagine him giving direction to someone and their head just spinning off as they tried to follow what he was saying.

If I had no idea what I was talking about, I'd actually be obscurantist. Such erudition and understanding as I have, you don't get to complain about. Not and stay honest, anyway. I like to stay honest.

To answer Lookout: somewhat more trenchant, perhaps, and as with most people, rather less organized. I've had stuff I've written passed around my old military unit as examples of clear and readable report writing.

No one has any business taking tw as a role model or a political advisor. That's the "we" in such acute question: most of the planet. Watching tw trying to do politics is like watching a thalidomide case try and play the bagpipes. There is that in his developmental history which prevents his ever being good at it.

That's just wrong. Thalidomide babies make great bagpipes.

Lord, he apologizes for that right there...

I want a copy of UG's Thesaurus. It must be the unabridged edition. Some wounds are so deep that scaring never goes away.

You know, an abridged Thesaurus would be... dear me, what's the mot juste? Every bit as useful as an abridged condom.

I'll leave someone else the chance to comment on the scary wounds.

UG now claims he needs an unabridged condom. I would have to see it to ...

I heard UG actually has a thesaurus tattooed on his junk.