First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply US may "pull out" on UN Human Rights Council
11307 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/6/17

moonhawk81 wrote:

Doesn't Kim Pooh-Pooh a


No no no no. It's "Kim Double Chin"
43254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / Memphis, TN
Offline
Posted 6/6/17

karatecowboy wrote:


moonhawk81 wrote:

Doesn't Kim Pooh-Pooh a


No no no no. It's "Kim Double Chin"


Well, I suppose that Dennis Rodman will just keep having to visit North Korea, since neither you nor I are likely to be invited anytime soon (and even less likely to accept!). . .
11307 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/6/17

moonhawk81 wrote:


Well, I suppose that Dennis Rodman will just keep having to visit North Korea, since neither you nor I are likely to be invited anytime soon (and even less likely to accept!). . .


He really is an appropriate ambassador to that nation. I'd recommend Barney the Dinosaur or Bozo the Clown, but they may be too dignified a dignitary.
Banned
22807 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / In
Offline
Posted 6/6/17
I didn't even know we were on it
21696 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Leanbox, Gameindu...
Offline
Posted 6/6/17
The same council that puts Libya and Saudi Arabia on the Human Rights Council? They're a complete joke and have zero credibility anyway.
25561 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Beyond The Wall
Offline
Posted 6/6/17
Thats strange...Saudi Arabia which still covertly practices and is heavily involved in the African Slave Trade is involved in the Human Right Council.....Really activates my almonds.
4187 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/6/17

moonhawk81 wrote:


MeanderCat wrote:


moonhawk81 wrote:



Sorry, but I think that the UN causes more problems than they help solve--or pretend to be interested in solving. The US should have abandoned that particular ship of fools decades ago, and sure as heck shouldn't give them a dime more than we already have! Isolationism might not be the answer, but neither is feeding and financing a world full of people who want to kill us. [Just one example: the tons of foodstuffs shipped by the US to North Korea during their famine of 1994-1998. Doesn't Kim Pooh-Pooh and his fascination with missiles make everyone soooooo happy that we tried to feed North Korea, with whom we were--and remain--technically in a state of war?]

The citizenry of the United States should demand freedom from the oppression of foreign influence and intervention oozing from the UN[!] like raw sewage overflowing from a burst pipe.


Funny, we said (and did) the exact same thing prior to WWII. Worked out really well, didn't it? We said "It's their problem, not ours!" - until it became our problem on December 7th, 1941.

I don't have an issue with an 'America First' concept, aside from the current vision being extremely short-sighted and isolationist. That didn't work well for US citizens in the past and I don't see it working well for us in the future.


December 7th, 1941. Being prior Navy, I am intimately familiar with that date--the date upon which Japan attacked the US with weapons constructed of steel, the majority of which had been supplied by. . .the US! So you see, a little more isolationism might have actually spared us the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor. But I'm no supporter of isolationism (please re-read my first post). My attitude is simply that you support your allies and don't support your enemies! It's a pretty simple approach, really, but something that the US seems to have trouble understanding. The US allows capitalism to become a political philosophy rather that relegating it to economic policy, and that's our big mistake. By accepting capitalism as political, we allow sales to our own enemies so long as they wear a thin veneer of alliance. How many allies do you really think we have in the Middle East? Yet we keep sending military and financial aid to the very countries that support and supply the terrorists who have attacked us. . .

Again, I repeat: Isolationism might not be the answer, but neither is feeding and financing a world full of people who want to kill us. The US should exit the UN, now.



Isolationism is not "might not be the answer", it isn't the answer if U.S wants to remain a global power. Not everyone who is your enemy today will always be your enemy in the future, same hold true of allies.
7286 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / Pacific North West
Offline
Posted 6/6/17

qwueri wrote:

Pulling out of a flawed council does nothing but leave the US without a voice on the matter. Not exactly the way to amend the flaws.


You misunderstand... just like in Iraq during persian gulf conflict. The US ALWAYS gets a say when we are motivated. Regardless of how the UN or anyone else feels. We supply the UNs bombs and missles for the most part. Nobody to slap our wrists.....


qwueri wrote:


namealreadytaken wrote:

http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2017/feb/01/rob-portman/us-contribution-un-22-percent/
tl;dr US wastes a ton of tax payer money on UN. over $3 billion to be more precise.


Diplomatic, humanitarian, and peacekeeping efforts are hardly a waste.


Thats subjective. diplomacy with N. Korea as well as Iran is getting absolutely no where, also consider how effective UN peacekeeping was in Egypt, Somalia, Kosovo.. the list goes on. Humanitarian aid is great... problem is UN has a "dont fight back" policy so we deliver aid and watch warlords grab everything as they mow down civilians. But hey as long as the UN troops are not shot at... its not their problem. Your ideals are correct in theory. However the reality of the UN is its a failing business model.
7286 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / Pacific North West
Offline
Posted 6/6/17

TarNaru33 wrote:

Isolationism is not "might not be the answer", it isn't the answer if U.S wants to remain a global power. Not everyone who is your enemy today will always be your enemy in the future, same hold true of allies.


This is also subjective. Atm we are the world police and practically the world bank. Its not doing us much good at all. on the other hand isolationism would mean we would have to be self sufficient, so that would mean cars would need to go away because the US refuses to use domestic oil.

Its a catch 22 really. Half the people in the US complain when we are enforcing world wide civility, and the same half whine and complain when we dont rush to the poor helpless countries aid. Its a no win situation.
qwueri 
22866 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 6/6/17

DevinKuska wrote:

You misunderstand... just like in Iraq during persian gulf conflict. The US ALWAYS gets a say when we are motivated. Regardless of how the UN or anyone else feels. We supply the UNs bombs and missles for the most part. Nobody to slap our wrists.....


Thats subjective. diplomacy with N. Korea as well as Iran is getting absolutely no where, also consider how effective UN peacekeeping was in Egypt, Somalia, Kosovo.. the list goes on. Humanitarian aid is great... problem is UN has a "dont fight back" policy so we deliver aid and watch warlords grab everything as they mow down civilians. But hey as long as the UN troops are not shot at... its not their problem. Your ideals are correct in theory. However the reality of the UN is its a failing business model.


With waning EU support, it's going to get harder and harder to do anything other than spend trillions getting embroiled in conflicts. And imperfect model can be improved upon, but leaving means any changes good or ill will not be from US input.
21873 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 6/6/17

dragontackle wrote:

Thats strange...Saudi Arabia which still covertly practices and is heavily involved in the African Slave Trade is involved in the Human Right Council.....Really activates my almonds.


> almonds
wat
7286 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / Pacific North West
Offline
Posted 6/6/17

qwueri wrote:


DevinKuska wrote:

You misunderstand... just like in Iraq during persian gulf conflict. The US ALWAYS gets a say when we are motivated. Regardless of how the UN or anyone else feels. We supply the UNs bombs and missles for the most part. Nobody to slap our wrists.....


Thats subjective. diplomacy with N. Korea as well as Iran is getting absolutely no where, also consider how effective UN peacekeeping was in Egypt, Somalia, Kosovo.. the list goes on. Humanitarian aid is great... problem is UN has a "dont fight back" policy so we deliver aid and watch warlords grab everything as they mow down civilians. But hey as long as the UN troops are not shot at... its not their problem. Your ideals are correct in theory. However the reality of the UN is its a failing business model.


With waning EU support, it's going to get harder and harder to do anything other than spend trillions getting embroiled in conflicts. And imperfect model can be improved upon, but leaving means any changes good or ill will not be from US input.


again you seemed to have missed my point... the US can add its input at any time with or without the UN. We can reach any country in the world and bomb it into the stone age without ever leaving the country. have no fear the end of the world may be near! lol
qwueri 
22866 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 6/7/17

DevinKuska wrote:

again you seemed to have missed my point... the US can add its input at any time with or without the UN. We can reach any country in the world and bomb it into the stone age without ever leaving the country. have no fear the end of the world may be near! lol


I'm referring to input in the direction of the council and the UN as a whole, bombing another country will only make things more complicated and less beneficial for the US if it's not on a council.
4187 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/7/17

DevinKuska wrote:


TarNaru33 wrote:

Isolationism is not "might not be the answer", it isn't the answer if U.S wants to remain a global power. Not everyone who is your enemy today will always be your enemy in the future, same hold true of allies.


This is also subjective. Atm we are the world police and practically the world bank. Its not doing us much good at all. on the other hand isolationism would mean we would have to be self sufficient, so that would mean cars would need to go away because the US refuses to use domestic oil.

Its a catch 22 really. Half the people in the US complain when we are enforcing world wide civility, and the same half whine and complain when we dont rush to the poor helpless countries aid. Its a no win situation.



It is not subjective at all... How do you think U.S became and stayed the global power for all of these years? It was because U.S threw out isolationism. If U.S was again go back to isolationism, it would mean a significant decline in U.S influence in the long term. Do you understand what that means? If U.S goes on to being isolationist it also means we couldn't justify our huge military budget as the main reason we have a military is to enforce influence and prevent influence of other nations on those of our allies/interests. Also despite what you think, U.S have largely benefited from its global endeavors at the cost of other nations.

Also the bold isn't true, you do not need to be self-sufficient to be isolationist. U.S is a great world economy, so even if it loses influence, it will still be very strong on negotiations involving trade.
7286 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / Pacific North West
Offline
Posted 6/7/17

TarNaru33 wrote:


It is not subjective at all... How do you think U.S became and stayed the global power for all of these years? It was because U.S threw out isolationism. If U.S was again go back to isolationism, it would mean a significant decline in U.S influence in the long term. Do you understand what that means? If U.S goes on to being isolationist it also means we couldn't justify our huge military budget as the main reason we have a military is to enforce influence and prevent influence of other nations on those of our allies/interests. Also despite what you think, U.S have largely benefited from its global endeavors at the cost of other nations.

Also the bold isn't true, you do not need to be self-sufficient to be isolationist. U.S is a great world economy, so even if it loses influence, it will still be very strong on negotiations involving trade.


The fact that you are disagreeing with me by very definition means its subjective lol. To your comment about the US staying a global power. The issue is being a global power costs the US billions every year. Not only in financial aid, but discounted munitions to allies, as well as buying other countries govt. bonds to help prop up "allied" economies.
Also you have to consider the US's influence in the world atm. Most of the world either doesn't likes us, or simply puts up with us because they need the US for one reason or another. Popular opinion in the US currently is that the US should stay out of everyone's business and bring our troops home. The proverbial "stay to your own, get your own" as it were. Whether this line of thinking is good or bad for the US depends on short term/long term results your looking to achieve as well as if its what the people want. The USA is supposed to have a govt that is FOR the people and makes decisions BY the people. If you hold the constitution as dearly as I do then for better or worse what the majority want is what the majority should get. Anything less and it becomes more akin to a dictatorship.

As far as not needing to be self sufficient to be an isolationist... I am not sure your familiar with how it works. I would suggest maybe looking at a few isolationist type govts. their trade is fairly minimal. Also consider govts. like N. Korea that are not self sufficient but strive for isolation. They lose thousands of people a year to starvation and have almost 11m who live in constant hunger. Now couple that with the total population of N Korea being roughly 25m and you have half the country starving. They do buy food from China but not because they want to... but because you cannot rule a country if all your subjects are dead. If you'd like to discuss this further feel free to message me and we can discuss each others points at your leisure.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.