 |
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
Imran - quote:
But the US can easily decide to stop paying dues to the UN and leave! Duh! |
But I can't, therefore the analogy to taxes is appropriate. Neither is voluntary...
quote:
No one is forcing the US from staying a member of the UN, but if it continues to want to do so, then it has to pay it's "fair share" of dues. |
The people who won't vote to leave are forcing those who want to leave to remain members. And since when is the US not paying it's fair share? More Americans have shed blood for the UN that any other nationality.
quote:
I'm questioning whether you've ever been there. |
Short memory there, Imran, we just left a thread where Loinburger had to point out that you screwed up reading what I said. And even you acknowledged it was you who screwed up.
quote:
Btw, thanks for the new sig. |
Your argument is that a majority can "volunteer" a sacrifice by the minority. Taking lessons from Al Gore?
quote:
What are you arguing about anyway? Just to be contrarian? |
One turn deserves another. Change your analysis to "Berzerker on Americans who don't want to part of the UN" and you'll convey the truth.
Big Crunch - speaking for myself, yes, and it would be nice if you and Imran let us answer before conveniently assuming we haven't thought thru it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Yeah, quantitatively, you give more than Sweden. |
I have no idea what that means. We give more than ANYBODY, per person, period.
Again you have no idea what you are talking about. US is going to stop using landmines.
quote:
U.S. Landmine Policy
On Friday, February 27, 2004, Lincoln P. Bloomfield. Jr., the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs who also serves as the Special Representative of the President and Secretary of State for Mine Action, announced the new United States policy on landmines. This policy is a significant departure from past approaches to landmines. It ensures protection for both military forces and civilians alike, and continues U.S. leadership in humanitarian mine action -- those activities that contribute most directly toward eliminating the landmine problem and mitigating its effects on landmine survivors. Under the new policy, the United States will:
eliminate all persistent landmines from its arsenal;
continue to develop non-persistent (self-destructing/self-deactivating) landmines that will not pose a humanitarian threat after use in battle;
continue to research and develop enhancements to the current self-destructing/self-deactivating landmine technology in order to develop and preserve military capabilities that address the United States transformational goals;
seek a worldwide ban on the sale or export of all persistent landmines;
get rid of its non-detectable mines within one year;
only employ persistent anti-vehicle mines outside of Korea between now and 2010, if needed, when authorized by the President;
not use any persistent landmines -- neither anti-personnel nor anti-vehicle -- anywhere after 2010;
begin the destruction within two years of those persistent landmines not needed for the protection of Korea;
seek a 50 percent increase in the U.S. Department of State's portion of the U.S. Humanitarian Mine Action Program over Fiscal Year 2003 baseline levels to $70 million a year. |
quote:
It's still blocking resolutions against Israel, including one that would have Israel withdraw from occupied territories. |
Don't even get me started on UN Resolutions. Secondly the major peace efforts in the conflict have always been led by the US. Where is the European plan?
EDIT: I see DinoDoc already addressed the UN Resolutions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's considered an 'open secret'.... but in saying so, one has to acknowledge the 'secret' part of the statement. The IAEA says Israel probably has nuclear weapons, but they don't have solid proof.
A bomb perhaps? I mean, if it is proven that Israel has these weapons (instead of very likely), then why does the Israeli government continue to deny accusations?
The official position is that Israel most likely has nuclear weapons, but we aren't going to say that there is 100% proof of it.
What are you arguing about anyway? Just to be contrarian? |
Right, I understand Imran- Ariel Sharon should just ‘fess up and say-
‘Hello world! We really do have 200 nuclear warheads as stated in Jane’s Intelligence Review! And we really did kidnap and try Mordechai Vanunu for treason, for revealing that he’d spent ten years manufacturing nuclear warheads at our non-inspected nuclear weapons facility in Dimona.’
Now why might Israel not want to reveal it has a stockpile of nuclear weapons?
Not being privy to the deliberations of the upper echelons of the Israeli government, secret service and nuclear defence establishment, I can't say 100% accurately why, but I can surmise.
Well of course, it wasn’t a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, so presumably breaking the treaty isn’t part of it. Perhaps not wanting to show its hand to the neighbouring hostile Arab states, do you think?
I seem to remember there have been a few wars in that area, involving Israel and some of its neighbours.
Or perhaps it feels that possession of a large nuclear arsenal might violate certain other international treaties and protocols:
Articles 2 and 51 of the U.N. Charter, which state that the use of force by one state against another is illegal except in defined cases. So the unprovoked use of a weapon would be illegal (i.e. first strike nuclear weapon usage).
Even when the use of armed force might be legitimate, certain weapons might not be used, and not all methods of waging war would be legal:
Article 22 of the Hague Convention:
‘the right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited’
Article 23:
[forbids] the use of arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering’
Two Geneva Protocols of 1977 prohibit:
‘methods or means of warfare which are intended , or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.’
One might also argue that the Nuremberg Principles of 1950 justify the view that planning and preparing for nuclear war is illegal under international law. Principle VI says:
‘planning, preparation, initiation or waging a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances’
is a crime against peace, punishable under international law.
Least proof required for American intelligence to ‘know’ Iraq has weapons of mass destruction-
one lorry, some anthrax that America sold Iraq, a ‘feeling’ in George Bush Jr.’s waters, and ‘Saddam tried to kill my Daydee’.
Least proof required for American government and Imran to ‘know’ that Israel has nuclear weaponry:
Moses descends from Mt. Sinai, a Jericho nuclear warhead tucked under his arm, Beqaa Valley glows in the dark and David Letterman films the Late Show from Dimona.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
Imran - quote:
Since WHEN were we talking about YOU?! |
Since you wanted to describe US participation in the UN as voluntary, that ignores that a majority cannot volunteer a sacrifice by the minority.
quote:
Like you said:
The US pays alot more in blood, do you want to put a $ value on that? And the US pays more, period.
There is nothing about your individual payment to the UN. |
I pay taxes involuntarily and some of those taxes support the UN. When people use expedient generalisations, they assume other parties understand they are expedient generalisations. For example, if I say the US wanted to invade Iraq, virtually everyone understands that Americans are divided on that issue but that the majority of Congress and the President agreed to invade Iraq if diplomacy failed. It would be wrong to conclude Americans volunteered to invade Iraq based on the actions of a handful of politicians and their supporters. And you call Molly a contrarian?
quote:
My argument is that if the US doesn't wish to pay the amount that the voluntary organization it agreed to join has decided, it can always leave. |
The US is not a person, it is a group of people who don't agree on being members. Your argument ignores that fact...
quote:
An apt analogy is that you are paying dues to a voluntary union, and you decide that your higher payment is unfair. If you think it is wrong, you can leave the union. |
I can't leave Imran, others have decided to force me to be a member of that union. That makes my "participation" involuntary...
quote:
Ah, you prove my point. Misreading = lack of logic in Berzerker world. And interestingly, I could say that you misread what you yourself posted . |
That was your point? Since when? That's the first time you offered that "point". You mis-read what I said based on an inability to grasp logic. You can call it "mis-reading" if you like, but I'm not the one who goes around mis-reading your posts and using my mistakes to denigrate you like you did in that thread and in this one.
OB - quote:
Not really. Iraq was not an UN-led mission. In NATO-led Kosovo mission, American allies commited men and cash. Many foreigners have died in Afghanistan and other peacekeeping missions, too. |
I never said Iraq or Kosovo was a UN led mission.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ted Striker
Yet the US still is going to ban them. would have been to ban them.
|
No, they are being replaced with self-shutting down mechanisms.
quote:
Those OTHER countries also have no strategic use for them either. Put German troops in the DMZ in Korea and then see how quickly they would have been to ban them.
|
No one has much use for them, except those who want to kill 10-years old playing in fields. We're talking about anti-personnel mines here, not mines.
BTW, your statement shows how ridiculous is your view of the world. America's allies have participated in many wars, and they've been putting their troops at the same risks.
quote:
America DOES coddle Isreal and I have said this many times. HOWEVER, the Europeans coddle Palestinian terrorism and look the other way. European "humanitarian" assistance has been funneled directly into terrorist hands.
|
Maybe, but they never take ACTION, not mentioning that Bush keeps repeating that "Israel has the right to defend itself from terrorism" every time they kill someone.
quote:
Europeans always boast about how their diplomacy can solve any problem, so let's see it in action for once. Solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem and put your money where your mouth is. |
Yeah, keep destroying villages, keep retaliating without care for collateral damage, keep strangling the Palestinian economy and see how terrorism will end, real soon. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-03-2004 05:12
.
We already get an insane amount of services from the UN. Hell, it can be said that it benefits the US most of all!
|