Just to let you know

[Guest]

He meant tendentiousness, you poor dumb fuck. <g> So much for your vocabulary.

[Guest DrTom]

Perhaps I might have come up with that one, had the original word in question looked or sounded enough like it.  "Tendictous" as the root was clunky enough to throw me completely off the trail, you contrary, prissy bitch.

[Guest DrTom]

Back to the topic at hand, if you don't mind...

 

"We should either reform it or leave it. But we shouldn't just sit there and take this kind of hypocritical, presumptuous, tit-for-tat bullshit."

 

We should come up with a list of grievances against the UN, and put our laughable eviction from the HRC at the top of the list.  Then we should demand that all the grievances be addressed, or we will withdraw from the UN, and they can kindly find another city to hold their little circus.  Maybe our threatened withdrawl and the possibility of eviction from NYC will get them to come around.  If not, let them build a new UN building in a place they seem to like better, maybe Saudi Arabia, and let them try to do *anything* in the world without American brainpower and muscle behind them.

[Guest]

Yeah, yeah, nice excuse, you dumb, uneducated little wanker...

 

Anyway, we were kicked off the ACABQ three years ago as well. One thing I dislike about US policy towards the UN is that Congress can vote against paying our dues. That's embarrassing and unreasonable. If we want to be a member, we should pay up and act responsibly. We shouldn't try to put a double whammy on an already ineffective organisation by first using our internal clout, and then applying external pressure if we don't like the results. That's unfair, indecorous, and unnecessary. We should simply withdraw.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

"Using large words instead of more common words is a sign of poor communication skills."

 

That's not entirely true, Mike.  I fancy a lot of different words, and it's never a bad thing to have a decent vocabulary.  Sometimes, a large word is simply (as Buckley has said), "a better fit" than a smaller one.  It all depends on how the sentence looks, sounds, and flows.>>>

 

 

However, in almost every public communications course you'll ever take, they always suggest you make your point with the most commonly used words possible.

 

For example, why say "penultimate" when "next to last" means the exact same thing and will be known by a larger percentage of the audience?

 

Intellectuals use needlessly large words to cover up how non-existent their thought actually is.

 

 

<<<More accurately, using large words incorrectly, instead of just using more common words, is a sign of poor communication skills.  The word in question stumped me and my sources, too; perhaps he meant "tenaciousness?" (Which itself is nicely replaced by the much more aesthetically pleasing "tenacity.") >>>

 

 

I assumed that---but I won't pretend to know every word out there. Maybe "Tendictousness" IS a word. I'd hate to reply when I have no clue what he's actually trying to say.

              -=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Yeah, yeah, nice excuse, you dumb, uneducated little wanker...

 

Anyway, we were kicked off the ACABQ three years ago as well. One thing I dislike about US policy towards the UN is that Congress can vote against paying our dues. That's embarrassing and unreasonable. If we want to be a member, we should pay up and act responsibly. We shouldn't try to put a double whammy on an already ineffective organisation by first using our internal clout, and then applying external pressure if we don't like the results. That's unfair, indecorous, and unnecessary. We should simply withdraw. >>>

 

 

In Congress' defense, they withheld our funds when it was obvious that the U.N was flat-out wasting money in a way that would make a Middle Eastern sheikh proud. We withheld it until they fixed some of their deep internal problems.

 

I'm just amazed that we have NO Americans heading any U.N agencies after this year (I know of one who is heading some agency, but I believe her term ends this year).

 

Will an American EVER be voted to be Secretary-General again? Absolutely not. There is no hope for that.

 

We're back on the HRC now. Will ANYTHING ever be investigated? Most likely not because the U.N doesn't require MEMBERS of the friggin' HRC to actually have GOOD human rights records.

 

We should leave the U.N because it provides us with NO benefits for remaining a member.

                           -=Mike

 

...And Bush really should remove our signature from the ICC treaty

[Guest]

I have no problem with why Congress withheld the funds, just that they did it in the first place. It was the wrong response for the right reasons. We should have issued a formal protest, tried harder to change things, something else, anything else, or we should have walked out. Not refused to pay the rent.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I have no problem with why Congress withheld the funds, just that they did it in the first place. It was the wrong response for the right reasons. We should have issued a formal protest, tried harder to change things, something else, anything else, or we should have walked out. Not refused to pay the rent. >>>

 

 

I don't claim to know all of the details, but I was under the impression that we had issued protests and had tried to fix things. We couldn't walk out without international condemnation, so I'm not sure what else we could do.

 

Does anybody know if we did issue formal protests? I know we COMPLAINED, but were there formal complaints?

              -=Mike

[Guest]

I don't know the details either, but I'm sure that protests, formal or informal, would have done no good. It's true that a walkout would have brought international condemnation, but it would also have demonstrated absolutely unequivocally over the next year - as the UN itself, and all affiliated organisations, were denied American funding, manpower, and technology - that the UN is completely helpless without us. They would have begged us to come back, and we could have named our own terms. Far more honourable and utilitarian a course, I think.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I don't know the details either, but I'm sure that protests, formal or informal, would have done no good. It's true that a walkout would have brought international condemnation, but it would also have demonstrated absolutely unequivocally over the next year - as the UN itself, and all affiliated organisations, were denied American funding, manpower, and technology - that the UN is completely helpless without us. They would have begged us to come back, and we could have named our own terms. Far more honourable and utilitarian a course, I think. >>>

 

 

Oh, let's be honest with ourselves.

 

If we left the U.N, Europe would IMMEDIATELY compare us to Nazi Germany (Hitler pulled Germany out of the disastrous Leaugue of Nations).

 

We still don't like that possibility---though I don't we should care one tiny bit.

              -=Mike

[Guest]

And European opinion counts for what, precisely? How many troops do they have? And how have they supported us in the UN since we stayed in?

However much they bitch and whine about American "unilateralism" and our "simplistic" policies, they know very well that they don't matter a damn without us. If we had left, they would have been the first ones begging us to come back.

[Guest Some Guy]

The way I look at the UN is this:

We host them in our country.

We pay 1/4 of the budget.

We helped to create them.

We provide about 90% of their troops (peace keepers).

 

And in return we get shit on for it.  The UN can go to hell for all I care.  We shouldn't just threaten to leave we should just leave and take our money and land with us.  Then we'd get to see how long they'd last with out it.  My guess 6 months before they beg us back or fall apart.

[Guest]

Yes, exactly. Well said.

[Guest Risk]

Hm.  The Muslim Church reminds me of the ancient Catholic Church, in terms of no fairness and lots of killing.

[Guest Some Guy]

Well since they seem to be living in the Crusades then I supose that makes sense.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

And European opinion counts for what, precisely? How many troops do they have? And how have they supported us in the UN since we stayed in?>>>

 

 

Oh, I'm not saying we should give two shits what Europe thinks. Quite frankly, Europe's opinion means about as much to me as the U.N's. I've grown so sick and tired of the world expecting us to carry all of the water and giving us nothing but hell for it.

 

 

<<<However much they bitch and whine about American "unilateralism" and our "simplistic" policies, they know very well that they don't matter a damn without us. If we had left, they would have been the first ones begging us to come back. >>>

 

 

And, let's be honest, of ALL places on Earth to bitch about "unilateralism" and "imperialism", doesn't Europe have the LEAST right to criticize others for that kind of behavior?

                           -=Mike

...Just checking, America has fought several wars to LIBERATE countries. How many wars has France fought like that? Heck, wasn't Vietnam a disaster left to us by France?

[Guest Some Guy]

"...Just checking, America has fought several wars to LIBERATE countries. How many wars has France fought like that? Heck, wasn't Vietnam a disaster left to us by France?"

 

Yes, which is another reason to hate the French.

 

The sad fact of the matter for Europeans is that our "simplistic" policies work and most of their "progressive" and "far-reaching" policies just don't.  France's economy is on the brink, due to their Socialist Gov't.  When their economy fails, bringing down Europe with it becasue of the illfounded EU, who do you suppose will be right there to help?  It ain't gonna be Palestine.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

"...Just checking, America has fought several wars to LIBERATE countries. How many wars has France fought like that? Heck, wasn't Vietnam a disaster left to us by France?"

 

<<<Yes, which is another reason to hate the French. >>>

 

 

Wouldn't it be easier, at this point, to think of reasons NOT to hate the French?

 

 

<<<The sad fact of the matter for Europeans is that our "simplistic" policies work and most of their "progressive" and "far-reaching" policies just don't.  France's economy is on the brink, due to their Socialist Gov't.  When their economy fails, bringing down Europe with it becasue of the illfounded EU, who do you suppose will be right there to help?  It ain't gonna be Palestine. >>>

 

 

Heck, the French economy almost COLLAPSED in 1956. WE bailed them out.

 

We have bent over backwards to help people with precious little asked for in return since WWII.

 

If countries like France don't appreciate it---let them suffer in their own misery. They have nothing we need and losing relations with them would be one of the better things this country has done.

                  -=Mike

 

...Honestly stunned that friggin' Fox Sports bought those damned Saudi Arabia propaganda spots.

[Guest]

Oh, I'm not saying we should give two shits what Europe thinks.

Ah, sorry. My mistake.

 

And, let's be honest, of ALL places on Earth to bitch about "unilateralism" and "imperialism", doesn't Europe have the LEAST right to criticize others for that kind of behavior?

Absolutely. Let's not forget that we rebuilt Europe with the Marshall Plan, allowed them to default on billions in debt, and saved their miserable asses from Hitler before that. And what do they give us in return? Carping and bitching, aid to our enemies, and "international condemnation" every way we turn - unless we happen to be bleeding at the time, and even then, the support is often backhanded and never material. Fuck those ungrateful bastards.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<<Quote  

And, let's be honest, of ALL places on Earth to bitch about "unilateralism" and "imperialism", doesn't Europe have the LEAST right to criticize others for that kind of behavior?

 

Absolutely. Let's not forget that we rebuilt Europe with the Marshall Plan, allowed them to default on billions in debt, and saved their miserable asses from Hitler before that.>>>

 

 

We also saved their butts from the Soviets, spending untold millions on defending them so they didn't have to.

 

 

<<<And what do they give us in return? Carping and bitching, aid to our enemies, and "international condemnation" every way we turn - unless we happen to be bleeding at the time, and even then, the support is often backhanded and never material. Fuck those ungrateful bastards. >>>

 

 

What I was referring to was that Europe condemns us for being "imperialistic"---yet what colonies do we own? I guess you could stretch and say American Samoa and Puerto Rico---but compare that to the MASSIVE empires European powers held for centuries.

 

Heck, no European power was as dominant a superpower as we are presently and we not only don't own colonies---we have no desire whatsoever to hold colonies.

                 -=Mike

[Guest]

Yes, excellent point. I suppose it's their projected guilt.

[Guest Phr33k]

This topic just keeps making me angrier and angrier. Sometimes I just want the US and it's more sensible allies (UK, Israel, etc) to unleash hell on this world and show everyone that we're not just another country.

 

The world needs to learn not to fuck with us anymore. I'm damn sick of it...we try to serve the interests of everyone and get shite on constantly. We have the best interests of everyone in mind, and we always get scolded for doing what's right. It's been going on for far too fucking long, and it's time for other nations to remember who the hell they're messing with.

You are full of shit. If your beloved States nuke everyone, everyone will nuke you back, and you will have no one to bail your asses out. Actually, I'd like to see someone else stand up to the Almighty American Power, just so you guys realize that you're not invincible.

 

Getting back on topic, I want my country out of this thing if all these asswipe countries are in it. Fuck all the Africans, don't let slave/racist countries in if their track record of human rights is anything short of perfect. "Oh, the Americans are violating HUMAN RIGHTS with people who want to kill them! Despite the attacks, these people have RIGHTS, terrorists or not!" Yup, can't violate terrorists' rights. They can kill YOU fine, but you CAN'T VIOLATE THEIR RIGHTS, no sirree. crockashit.