Do you oppose the Korean War in hindsight?

[Wry Catcher]

US warns North Korea of increased isolation if threats escalate further
White House says US will not be intimidated by 'bellicose rhetoric' and is fully capable of defending itself and its allies
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 March 2013 14.33 EDT

US warns North Korea of increased isolation if threats escalate further | World news | guardian.co.uk

The Korean War was sanctioned by the United Nations; therefore, the American Left had their hands tied. American Communists could not protest a military action against the spread of communism without criticizing the UN. The Vietnam War was not sanctioned by the United Nations; therefore; American Communists were free to bring defeat their own country.

NOTE: America’s “loyal” ally, the UK, did not fight with America in Vietnam. I always found that despicable. Communists were determined to destroy America just as Germany would have destroyed England in two wars, yet the Brits always behaved as though it was America’s duty to come to England’s aid while they were under no obligation to fight alongside America against its enemy. I should also point out that the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, were really hot battles in the Cold War against communism. Had the United Nations not sanctioned the Korean Police Action ——ONLY 5 YEARS AFTER THE END OF WWII —— I doubt if the UK would helped us there.

Now that Kim Jong-un is doing a lot more than saber-rattling let me quote President Truman on stopping Communist expansion in Korea:

We've got to stop the sons of bitches, no matter what, and that's all there is to it.

For many years I suggested asking every top Democrat the following:

Do you oppose the Korean War in hindsight?

If they answer “Yes” they admit that fighting against communism is what they oppose.

If they answer “No.” ask them why not? since both wars were fought for the same reason.

Thank you Kim Jong-un for making the question more important today than it’s ever been in the past.

This is where it gets interesting. Is the UN’s stamp of approval still in effect should North Korea attack South Korea ?

If so, American Communists may not have to face the dilemma of demonstrating against the United Nations this time around because three traitors are perched at the top of government. Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Hussein. Biden and Kerry took an active part in betraying this country, and the men and women who were doing the fighting, during the Vietnam war. Hussein was born in 1961; so he was too young to do the things Biden and Kerry did, but there is no doubt as to where his loyalties lie.

Next question

Will America’s allies support us again? Answer: Possibly because of the nuclear bomb factor.

Also, Americans have seen damn few loyal Democrats in high office since Harry Truman stuck it to the Soviet Union in 1950. None in Hussein’s administration. Back in 1950 Communist China was not a member of the UN. Today, they have a seat on the Security Council. Guess how the Chicoms feel about Kim Jong-un’s expansion plans.

Logically, North Korea’s military planners must rely on three things:

1. China will back their play when push comes to shove.

2. American traitors will do everything in their power to portray a second Korean War as another Vietnam.

3. Most importantly, Kim Jong-un is counting on Hussein & Company to keep the United Nations out of it à la Vietnam. In short: Kim would not be poking the lion without Hussein & Company in power.

Incidentally, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is from South Korea. I don’t know what Ban is doing behind the scenes, or how it plays into North Korea’s plans.

On the bright side, no matter how it goes North Korea could trigger the UN’s downfall. The majority of Americans already despise the UN. It won’t take much to push it over the edge. And there would be no better example of poetic justice than to have it happen when UN-loving traitors are in charge.

Boy, you REALLY need to study history before you make a complete fool of yourself.

Too late!

 

[Flanders]

We probably would have had a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union.

To Sallow: See #29 permalink:

There were several points in our history where that was entirely possible and was averted through the UN and back channel communications.

To Sallow: That’s absurd. The Strategic Air Command and nuclear submarines kept the Soviet Union in check not the UN. Americans would do well to rely on the US military to do the same with the New Russia, and Communist China. Trusting the UN to hold America’s enemies at bay is a prescription for disaster.

And I’d like to see some proof of those back channels you referred to.

Additionally the UN acts as both a conduit for the world to communicate to the US

To Sallow: Nobody objects to the UN existing as a debating society. The objection is to everything else, not the least of those objections being United Nations treaties. Not one of those UN treaties waiting for ratification by the “right" bunch of senators is good for the American people in any way; UN Arms Trade Treaty, CEDAW, and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol) to name the worst of them.

NOTE: Jimmy Carter signed CEDAW in 1980. Americans born in 1980 are now 33 years old. That treaty alone tells us that UN treaties should expire two years after they are written, or when the president who signed them leaves office if they are not ratified.

Bottom line: Since passing HR 1146 appears to be out of the question for now, pay our share of the utility bill for UN headquarters and not a penny more.

I would also take diplomatic immunity away from everyone connected to the UN in any way. Diplomatic immunity should be granted to a few people attached to foreign embassies —— ambassadors and their spouses —— not to members of an ORGANIZATION which is what the UN is.

and an adjunct to both project power and soften the image of US hegemony.

To Sallow: Your record is intact. You’re never right about anything. Apparently, you’re another fool who believes the UN is controlled by our government. Even if it was true it is not controlled for the benefit of the American people.

 

[Flopper]

The John Birch Society founded in the 1950's was fiercely opposed to the UN calling for the US government to abandon the UN and withdrawal funding. They claimed our government was betraying the country's sovereignty to the United Nations for a collectivist New World Order, etc, etc. The same mess you're spouting today.

I can remember as a kid the anti-UN billboards on the highways and the bumper stickers that are still available today. The problem with this propaganda is that it is totally out of sync with today's world.

To Flopper: You’re correct. I forgot the JBS. Your use of the plural threw me.

Incidentally, the John Birch Society had some effect, although not nearly as much as it would have gotten had the media given it the same kind of coverage they later gave to the American Communists who brought defeat to their own country in Vietnam.

Whether we like it or not we are very dependent on other countries such as China, Japan, Canada, Mexico, Germany, South Korea. We are importing 11.4 million barrels of oil a day. Excluding farm products, last year 60% of the goods sold in the US were imported. I would say that's a lot of dependence on other countries.

To Flopper: Not one of those dependencies is necessary.

As to petroleum. America exports money and imports oil. No matter what happens politically this country has enough petroleum to maintain and improve our standard of living far into the future. Indefinitely once technology finds a way to recover all of the petroleum remaining in “dried out wells.” That total alone is equal to all of the oil those fields produced before they went dry.

In addition to the US never running out of petroleum, scientists will eventually develop new sources of energy, and they won’t come from the UN and green energy scams.

Finally, you are falling for the UN’s propaganda that says Americans are the only peoples who want to hang onto their sovereignty. In truth, most countries use the UN to shakedown America with all of that collectivist one world crapola while hanging onto to their own sovereignty. Even EU countries are starting to question the loss of their sovereignty.

Without the UN..this country would have been on the dust pile of history a long time ago.

To Sallow: Ordinarily, I would assume anybody posting such a stupid remark was playing Devil’s advocate. In your case I’ll skip the Devil’s advocate part.

And just to set the record straight America has been going downhill since the day the UN succeeded the League of Nations.

Your approach is ideological not practical.

Could the US produce enough oil to become energy independent? Absolutely, but at what cost to the American consumer? $5/gal of gas, $6, $7. Much of our oil reserves will be expensive to tap plus there are environmental factors which would make production a political issue. The cost of production in the US is simply higher than in most of the countries we import from. Many of those countries make huge profits on oil sales and can push prices lower if they chose to freeze out higher cost production in the US.

A similar situation exist with hundreds of billions of other imports. In order to produce those goods in the US, either the cost of labor in the US would have to fall dramatically or the cost of goods would have to rise dramatically. The most likely scenario would be some combination of lower pay for factory workers and higher prices for consumers. In other words we would be looking at a decrease in our standard of living, something the American public would not accept.

Then there are the goods and materials that are not available in the US at any cost, such as some of the rare earth metals essential to much high tech manufacturing and many agricultural products that don't grow in the US or are too expensive. Actually the list would be much too long to list.

The days in which the US could isolate itself from the rest of the world has long since past.

 

[Desperado]

Your approach is ideological not practical.

Could the US produce enough oil to become energy independent? Absolutely, but at what cost to the American consumer? $5/gal of gas, $6, $7. Much of our oil reserves will be expensive to tap plus there are environmental factors which would make production a political issue. The cost of production in the US is simply higher than in most of the countries we import from. Many of those countries make huge profits on oil sales and can push prices lower if they chose to freeze out higher cost production in the US.

A similar situation exist with hundreds of billions of other imports. In order to produce those goods in the US, either the cost of labor in the US would have to fall dramatically or the cost of goods would have to rise dramatically. The most likely scenario would be some combination of lower pay for factory workers and higher prices for consumers. In other words we would be looking at a decrease in our standard of living, something the American public would not accept.

Then there are the goods and materials that are not available in the US at any cost, such as some of the rare earth metals essential to much high tech manufacturing and many agricultural products that don't grow in the US or are too expensive. Actually the list would be much too long to list.

The days in which the US could isolate itself from the rest of the world has long since past.

No where did I see anyone calling for the US to become an isolationist country.
You can still deal with other countries without being involving the UN!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The UN is the creation of the US, and still often furthers US interests.

To suggest it should go away without any cost benefit analysis for the US is silly.

 

[Flanders]

Your approach is ideological not practical.

Could the US produce enough oil to become energy independent? Absolutely, but at what cost to the American consumer? $5/gal of gas, $6, $7. Much of our oil reserves will be expensive to tap plus there are environmental factors which would make production a political issue. The cost of production in the US is simply higher than in most of the countries we import from. Many of those countries make huge profits on oil sales and can push prices lower if they chose to freeze out higher cost production in the US.

A similar situation exist with hundreds of billions of other imports. In order to produce those goods in the US, either the cost of labor in the US would have to fall dramatically or the cost of goods would have to rise dramatically. The most likely scenario would be some combination of lower pay for factory workers and higher prices for consumers. In other words we would be looking at a decrease in our standard of living, something the American public would not accept.

Then there are the goods and materials that are not available in the US at any cost, such as some of the rare earth metals essential to much high tech manufacturing and many agricultural products that don't grow in the US or are too expensive. Actually the list would be much too long to list.

The days in which the US could isolate itself from the rest of the world has long since past.

To Flopper: This is where I get off:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDWCb3qP5Tc&feature=player_embedded]1998 46-Foot Custom Carousel - YouTube[/ame]​

The UN is the creation of the US, and still often furthers US interests.

To suggest it should go away without any cost benefit analysis for the US is silly.

To JakeStarkey: Fine. Offer one. I wait with bated breath for the benefit you place on lost sovereignty.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Don't have to offer anything because no one has offered any evidenced reason why we should leave.

The affirmative is on you, Flanders, why we should leave the UN.

 

[Flanders]

Don't have to offer anything because no one has offered any evidenced reason why we should leave.

To JakeStarkey: It was you, not me, that introduced a cost benefit analysis. I offered you the opportunity to make your case.

The affirmative is on you, Flanders, why we should leave the UN.

To JakeStarkey: In a word SOVEREIGNTY. If you want precise details read HR 1146:

H.R.1146 -- American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2009 (Introduced in House - IH)

HR 1146 IH

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1146

To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 17, 2011​

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

A BILL​

To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.​

This Act may be cited as the `American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS PARTICIPATION ACT.

(a) Repeal- The United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (Public Law 79-264; 22 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is repealed.

(b) Termination of Participation in United Nations- The President shall terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations.

(c) Closure of United States Mission to United Nations- The United States Mission to the United Nations is closed. Any remaining functions of such office shall not be carried out.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS HEADQUARTERS AGREEMENT ACT.

(a) Repeal- The United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act (Public Law 80-357) is repealed.

(b) Withdrawal- The United States withdraws from the agreement between the United States of America and the United Nations regarding the headquarters of the United Nations (signed at Lake Success, New York, on June 26, 1947, which was brought into effect by the United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act).

SEC. 4. UNITED STATES ASSESSED AND VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UNITED NATIONS.

(a) Termination- No funds are authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for assessed or voluntary contributions of the United States to the United Nations or any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body thereof, except that funds may be appropriated to facilitate withdrawal of United States personnel and equipment. Upon termination of United States membership, no payments shall be made to the United Nations or any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body thereof, out of any funds appropriated prior to such termination or out of any other funds available for such purposes.

(b) Application- The provisions of this section shall apply to all agencies of the United Nations, including independent or voluntary agencies.

SEC. 5. UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS.

(a) Termination- No funds are authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for any United States contribution to any United Nations military operation.

(b) Terminations of United States Participation in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations- No funds may be obligated or expended to support the participation of any member of the Armed Forces of the United States as part of any United Nations military or peacekeeping operation or force. No member of the Armed Forces of the United States may serve under the command of the United Nations.

SEC. 6. WITHDRAWAL OF UNITED NATIONS PRESENCE IN FACILITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND REPEAL OF DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY.

(a) Withdrawal From United States Government Property- The United Nations (including any affiliated agency of the United Nations) shall not occupy or use any property or facility of the United States Government.

(b) Diplomatic Immunity- No officer or employee of the United Nations or any representative, officer, or employee of any mission to the United Nations of any foreign government shall be entitled to enjoy the privileges and immunities of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961, nor may any such privileges and immunities be extended to any such individual. The privileges, exemptions and immunities provided for in the International Organizations Immunities Act of December 29, 1945 (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288, 288a-f), or in any agreement or treaty to which the United States is a party, including the agreement entitled `Agreement Between the United Nations and the United States of America Regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations', signed June 26, 1947 (22 U.S.C. 287), and the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, entered into force with respect to the United States on April 29, 1970 (21 UST 1418; TIAS 6900; UNTS 16), shall not apply to the United Nations or any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body thereof, to the officers and employees of the United Nations, or any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body thereof, or to the families, suites or servants of such officers or employees.

SEC. 7. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION ACT.

The joint resolution entitled `A joint resolution providing for membership and participation by the United States in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, and authorizing an appropriation therefor' approved July 30, 1946 (Public Law 79-565, 22 U.S.C. 287m-287t), is repealed.

SEC. 8. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION ACT OF 1973.

The United Nations Environment Program Participation Act of 1973 (22 U.S.C. 287 note) is repealed.

SEC. 9. REPEAL OF UNITED STATES PARTICIPATION IN THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION.

The joint resolution entitled `Joint Resolution providing for membership and participation by the United States in the World Health Organization and authorizing an appropriation therefor,' approved June 14, 1948 (22 U.S.C. 290, 290a-e-1) is repealed.

SEC. 10. REPEAL OF INVOLVEMENT IN UNITED NATIONS CONVENTIONS AND AGREEMENTS.

As of the date of the enactment of this Act, the United States will end any and all participation in any and all conventions and agreements with the United Nations and any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations. Any remaining functions of such conventions and agreements shall not be carried out.

SEC. 11. REEMPLOYMENT WITH UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AFTER SERVICE WITH AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the rights of employees under subchapter IV of chapter 35 of title 5, United States Code, relating to reemployment after service with an international organization.

SEC. 12. NOTIFICATION.

Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall notify the United Nations and any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations of the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 13. EFFECTIVE DATE.

Except as otherwise provided, this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

 

[Flopper]

Whether we like it or not we are very dependent on other countries such as China, Japan, Canada, Mexico, Germany, South Korea. We are importing 11.4 million barrels of oil a day. Excluding farm products, last year 60% of the goods sold in the US were imported. I would say that's a lot of dependence on other countries.

Which has nothing to do with the UN. The US can deal with each country on their own.
Absolutely no need for the UN.

To say there is no need for the UN is to say there is no need for the nations of the world to work together to solve global problems. International conflicts, economic upheaval, and international terrorism, have global impact that often don't lend themselves to unilateral solutions, particularly by the US.

The UN provides a conduit for the US into unfriendly nations. If you want peace, you talk to your enemies, not your friends; the UN provides the place and the process to make that happen.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you, Flanders, for FINALLY offering something, which is your duty to do.

Now that you have posted Herr Paul's act, give us a cost benefit analysis of withdrawing from the UN.

We all can respond once you have finished your duty of affirmation.

 

[Flanders]

The UN is the creation of the US, and still often furthers US interests.

To suggest it should go away without any cost benefit analysis for the US is silly.

Thank you, Flanders, for FINALLY offering something, which is your duty to do.

Now that you have posted Herr Paul's act, give us a cost benefit analysis of withdrawing from the UN.

We all can respond once you have finished your duty of affirmation.

To JakeStarkey: My, my, what a clever little fellow you are. You brought it up. You do it. Or are you too stupid to prove your case with your own suggestion?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Nope, Korean war was a good call. Case closed.

You are a very intelligent young man. I am impressed! You represent hope for our future! Thank you.

-Jeri

 

[Trajan]

Whether we like it or not we are very dependent on other countries such as China, Japan, Canada, Mexico, Germany, South Korea. We are importing 11.4 million barrels of oil a day. Excluding farm products, last year 60% of the goods sold in the US were imported. I would say that's a lot of dependence on other countries.

Which has nothing to do with the UN. The US can deal with each country on their own.
Absolutely no need for the UN.

Without the UN..this country would have been on the dust pile of history a long time ago.

you have that exactly backasswards, but we are used to it.......

 

[Trajan]

Whether we like it or not we are very dependent on other countries such as China, Japan, Canada, Mexico, Germany, South Korea. We are importing 11.4 million barrels of oil a day. Excluding farm products, last year 60% of the goods sold in the US were imported. I would say that's a lot of dependence on other countries.

Which has nothing to do with the UN. The US can deal with each country on their own.
Absolutely no need for the UN.

To say there is no need for the UN is to say there is no need for the nations of the world to work together to solve global problems. International conflicts, economic upheaval, and international terrorism, have global impact that often don't lend themselves to unilateral solutions, particularly by the US.

The UN provides a conduit for the US into unfriendly nations. If you want peace, you talk to your enemies, not your friends; the UN provides the place and the process to make that happen.

Oh I know, their success has been well awesome!!!


we'll pass on rwanda, darfur, the balkans, Chechnya, Syria, Iraq etc etc etc etc....

and we'll take a pass on the useless moral morass the UN has become, condemning Israel, lowering the flag to half staff for Arafat,..... I mean we simply must have Iran on the womans civil rights commission becasue you know, they are so tolerant of womans issues...and gays...and Christians.....

has it occurred to you the US, not the UN has been the guarantor of the peace between global nations, not the UN?

 

[Trajan]

The John Birch Society founded in the 1950's was fiercely opposed to the UN calling for the US government to abandon the UN and withdrawal funding. They claimed our government was betraying the country's sovereignty to the United Nations for a collectivist New World Order, etc, etc. The same mess you're spouting today.

I can remember as a kid the anti-UN billboards on the highways and the bumper stickers that are still available today. The problem with this propaganda is that it is totally out of sync with today's world.

To Flopper: You’re correct. I forgot the JBS. Your use of the plural threw me.

Incidentally, the John Birch Society had some effect, although not nearly as much as it would have gotten had the media given it the same kind of coverage they later gave to the American Communists who brought defeat to their own country in Vietnam.



To Flopper: Not one of those dependencies is necessary.

As to petroleum. America exports money and imports oil. No matter what happens politically this country has enough petroleum to maintain and improve our standard of living far into the future. Indefinitely once technology finds a way to recover all of the petroleum remaining in “dried out wells.” That total alone is equal to all of the oil those fields produced before they went dry.

In addition to the US never running out of petroleum, scientists will eventually develop new sources of energy, and they won’t come from the UN and green energy scams.

Finally, you are falling for the UN’s propaganda that says Americans are the only peoples who want to hang onto their sovereignty. In truth, most countries use the UN to shakedown America with all of that collectivist one world crapola while hanging onto to their own sovereignty. Even EU countries are starting to question the loss of their sovereignty.

Without the UN..this country would have been on the dust pile of history a long time ago.

To Sallow: Ordinarily, I would assume anybody posting such a stupid remark was playing Devil’s advocate. In your case I’ll skip the Devil’s advocate part.

And just to set the record straight America has been going downhill since the day the UN succeeded the League of Nations.

Your approach is ideological not practical.

Could the US produce enough oil to become energy independent? Absolutely, but at what cost to the American consumer? $5/gal of gas, $6, $7. Much of our oil reserves will be expensive to tap plus there are environmental factors which would make production a political issue. The cost of production in the US is simply higher than in most of the countries we import from. Many of those countries make huge profits on oil sales and can push prices lower if they chose to freeze out higher cost production in the US.

A similar situation exist with hundreds of billions of other imports. In order to produce those goods in the US, either the cost of labor in the US would have to fall dramatically or the cost of goods would have to rise dramatically. The most likely scenario would be some combination of lower pay for factory workers and higher prices for consumers. In other words we would be looking at a decrease in our standard of living, something the American public would not accept.

Then there are the goods and materials that are not available in the US at any cost, such as some of the rare earth metals essential to much high tech manufacturing and many agricultural products that don't grow in the US or are too expensive. Actually the list would be much too long to list.

The days in which the US could isolate itself from the rest of the world has long since past.

Your approach is ideological not practical.

wow,....irony much?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The UN is the creation of the US, and still often furthers US interests.

To suggest it should go away without any cost benefit analysis for the US is silly.

Thank you, Flanders, for FINALLY offering something, which is your duty to do.

Now that you have posted Herr Paul's act, give us a cost benefit analysis of withdrawing from the UN.

We all can respond once you have finished your duty of affirmation.

To JakeStarkey: My, my, what a clever little fellow you are. You brought it up. You do it. Or are you too stupid to prove your case with your own suggestion?

It is YOUR act, son, not mine.

Your affirmation requires you to do the heavy lifting.

 

[Flanders]

The UN is the creation of the US, and still often furthers US interests.

To suggest it should go away without any cost benefit analysis for the US is silly.

Thank you, Flanders, for FINALLY offering something, which is your duty to do.

Now that you have posted Herr Paul's act, give us a cost benefit analysis of withdrawing from the UN.

We all can respond once you have finished your duty of affirmation.

It is YOUR act, son, not mine.

Your affirmation requires you to do the heavy lifting.

To JakeStarkey: No It doesn’t. HR 1146 speaks for itself.

The truth is you were trying to sound intelligent by calling for a cost-benefit analysis. When I called upon you to produce one you realized you lack the intelligence to follow through. Now, you’re trying to weasel out by calling on me to make your case for you. Every filthy little sneak I dealt with in 13 years tried that game by asking clever questions.

Proof that what I say about you is true: Had I not posted HR 1146 you would lack an excuse for NOT presenting your cost-benefit analysis. Now either put up or shut.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The truth is that you posted a proposed Act without any discussion of its merits, podjo.

Until you do, no one can really respond.

To dialogue, you have to think critically and you are not doing that.

 

[Flanders]

The UN is the creation of the US, and still often furthers US interests.

To suggest it should go away without any cost benefit analysis for the US is silly.

To JakeStarkey: Fine. Offer one. I wait with bated breath for the benefit you place on lost sovereignty.

Don't have to offer anything because no one has offered any evidenced reason why we should leave.

The affirmative is on you, Flanders, why we should leave the UN.

To JakeStarkey: It was you, not me, that introduced a cost benefit analysis. I offered you the opportunity to make your case.

The affirmative is on you, Flanders, why we should leave the UN.

To JakeStarkey: In a word SOVEREIGNTY. If you want precise details read HR 1146:

Thank you, Flanders, for FINALLY offering something, which is your duty to do.

Now that you have posted Herr Paul's act, give us a cost benefit analysis of withdrawing from the UN.

We all can respond once you have finished your duty of affirmation.

To JakeStarkey: My, my, what a clever little fellow you are. You brought it up. You do it. Or are you too stupid to prove your case with your own suggestion?

It is YOUR act, son, not mine.

Your affirmation requires you to do the heavy lifting.

To JakeStarkey: No It doesn’t. HR 1146 speaks for itself.

The truth is you were trying to sound intelligent by calling for a cost-benefit analysis. When I called upon you to produce one you realized you lack the intelligence to follow through. Now, you’re trying to weasel out by calling on me to make your case for you. Every filthy little sneak I dealt with in 13 years tried that game by asking clever questions.

Proof that what I say about you is true: Had I not posted HR 1146 you would lack an excuse for NOT presenting your cost-benefit analysis. Now either put up or shut.

The truth is that you posted a proposed Act without any discussion of its merits, podjo.

Until you do, no one can really respond.

To dialogue, you have to think critically and you are not doing that.

To JakeStarkey: Don’t you realize print is different than a face to face discussion! You may talk your way out of your stupid remarks when arguing with the folks down at the local gin mill, but you can’t weasel out once it’s in print; especially not with me. I have too much experience dealing with liberal sidewinders. You’re all the same. Everyone of your kind thinks that debating means demanding answers to sly questions.

Now, for the last time let’s review the “debate”!

You foolishly said the UN often furthers US interests. You who demand proof from me provided no proof of the UN’s usefulness to American interests. To support your first idiotic claim you trotted out cost-benefit analysis as though you knew what you were talking about. In short: Fools love using big words; cost-benefit analysis is your big word.

I then gave you the opportunity to back up your claim. It was at that point you realized you had dived into a pile of crap, and the only way to pull yourself out was to distance yourself from your a cost-benefit analysis blunder.

A close reading of the above permalinks proves that you wanted no part of cost-benefit analysis after you brought it up.

NOTE: I wonder how you would have handled it had another poster asked you to provide a cost-benefit analysis!

You next asked me a question I chose to answer because it gave me the opportunity to post the text of HR 1146. That was your golden opportunity to turn it around. Never mind that anybody with an ounce of brains could see that Res Ipsa Loquitur applied; you had to ask for more information because you were drowning in your own crap and any lifeline was better than going under. A person with any sense would have kept their shut at that point, but not you. Like so many of your kind on message boards —— getting in the last word proves you’re not a half-wit in your own mind no matter what you said previously.

I’ll close with a bit of friendly advice. For once in your life think critically and keep your mouth shut before your own crap engulfs you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The affirmation was Flanders, I asked for him to give solid evidence, and he publishes Herr Paul's submitted act with no evaluation of its cost benefits to us a nation.

I ask him to do so, and he keeps deflecting.