First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply US may "pull out" on UN Human Rights Council
jl6
469 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Florida
Offline
Posted 6/7/17
shit i read this thread all wrong something about pulling out
9753 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 6/7/17

redokami wrote:


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


Don't mock a man's misshapen nuts!
4179 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 6/7/17

DevinKuska wrote:


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.


Not sure if I will include North Korea as an example here, it seems more on them being isolationist while also being isolated by other countries.

U.S does not care if certain populations of the world "likes" it or not, it only cares about them being under the umbrella of influence. As I said before, U.S benefited tremendously from influence including putting the U.S dollar as an international currency. We do get on news that people "hate U.S" and all a lot, but I am not sure if it is that bad. Besides, only the Middle-East and certain Latin American countries seem to hate U.S that much lol. That said, U.S relinquishing this influence will only aide in it's downfall. If crashing U.S's power in favor of being isolationist is the goal, then I think its a foolish one.

I do disagree with the majority rules thing, you can easily get tyranny from that. Not everything the majority want, it should get and I say that at the person who supported Clinton after Bernie lost the primary.

After re-reading your posts, I think I can agree to most of what you are saying though.
6410 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / Pacific North West
Offline
Posted 6/7/17

TarNaru33 wrote:

After re-reading your posts, I think I can agree to most of what you are saying though.


Actually I think you and I agree completely the difference being I was trying to keep my statements a bit more objective, and not insert my own personal opinions. Cheers!
17341 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
45 / M / Verginia
Offline
Posted 6/7/17
Tbh. We should have pulled out deccades ago as some of the worst human rights violators are members and apperently don't have to "walk the walk" to be voting members. Like the un in general it is a pointless bad joke. Can anyone here state one case where this bullshit committee actually produced a real world acchivement?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.