The real nuclear threat versus fantasy Iranian ICBMs

[Dr Grump]

It seems to me that contrary to what you are claiming, the US ponies up more than its share, (Yes, more.), of costs. On the other hand, the august body of the UN is nearly always attempting to 'check' read 'block' all actions that may be beneficial to US

In actual monies, yes, the US gives the most (I think). In per head of population? No, it does not.

Your last point is an interesting one and I have an observation from someone who is outside your borders. Down here, and in Australia, Canada and some European countries it <i>seems</i> that when we do something in our own interests, we do take the affect of others into account. For example, it might be better for us to put tariffs on fruit from the Pacific Islands to protect our own markets, but in a true free trading environment, it is inherently unfair on the Islands, and it affects their economy, which vicariously affects ours. We get more Islanders immigrating to NZ due to lack of job opportunities in their primary industries and they put a huge cost on us because most are unskilled and quite a few end up on the dole (your welfare0. So, when making such decsions our govts seem to weigh up the costs and benefits. What I'm trying to say here is, we just don't do it because it is in our interests and that's the bottom line. Now, with the US, it seems different. It seems you guys do things in your own interest and damn the consequences. That is the impression we get. I think it is a cultural thing. In the US there is a strong sense of "Survival of the fittest" with not many backstops. Or if there are backstops, they're minimal and demeaning to those who need them. I think sometimes your politicians take that to the international stage and we just don't like it. What you guys see as socialism, we see as giving our fellow humans a helping hand. And please do not confuse a helping hand with just helping those to lazy to help themselves. They are just as detested in our society as they are in yours.

That's my two cents worth ...:O)

 

[Annie]

In actual monies, yes, the US gives the most (I think). In per head of population? No, it does not.

Your last point is an interesting one and I have an observation from someone who is outside your borders. Down here, and in Australia, Canada and some European countries it <i>seems</i> that when we do something in our own interests, we do take the affect of others into account. For example, it might be better for us to put tariffs on fruit from the Pacific Islands to protect our own markets, but in a true free trading environment, it is inherently unfair on the Islands, and it affects their economy, which vicariously affects ours. We get more Islanders immigrating to NZ due to lack of job opportunities in their primary industries and they put a huge cost on us because most are unskilled and quite a few end up on the dole (your welfare0. So, when making such decsions our govts seem to weigh up the costs and benefits. What I'm trying to say here is, we just don't do it because it is in our interests and that's the bottom line.

IMO you would be correct, the US hasn't any ties like NZ and Aussies. So, no, we don't do the same.

Now, with the US, it seems different. It seems you guys do things in your own interest and damn the consequences. That is the impression we get. I think it is a cultural thing. In the US there is a strong sense of "Survival of the fittest" with not many backstops. Or if there are backstops, they're minimal and demeaning to those who need them. I think sometimes your politicians take that to the international stage and we just don't like it. What you guys see as socialism, we see as giving our fellow humans a helping hand. And please do not confuse a helping hand with just helping those to lazy to help themselves. They are just as detested in our society as they are in yours.

That's my two cents worth ...:O)

Funny that above, you are accusing us of being 'Darwinian', while often the accusation is being to 'biblical.' Cute by more than half. I agree however, that we are totally into US interests, rest of world is on their own, except those we protect. (How many is that? I can't keep count).

 

[Dr Grump]

IMO you would be correct, the US hasn't any ties like NZ and Aussies. So, no, we don't do the same.
Funny that above, you are accusing us of being 'Darwinian', while often the accusation is being to 'biblical.' Cute by more than half. I agree however, that we are totally into US interests, rest of world is on their own, except those we protect. (How many is that? I can't keep count).

Care to expand on your Darwinian/biblical analogy. It is lost on me.

As for US interests only, that is why the rest of the world eyes you warily. You cannot be trusted to do the right thing for the right thing's sake, yet many on this board profess it does exactly that most of the time, and they feel damned if they do, and damned if they don't..(shrug). Maybe you guys should try to help out without having an alternate reason. You used to be like that you know...

 

[Annie]

Care to expand on your Darwinian/biblical analogy. It is lost on me.

No. I don't for the simple reason I need to get to bed. There is enough here for you to figure it out.

As for US interests only, that is why the rest of the world eyes you warily. You cannot be trusted to do the right thing for the right thing's sake, yet many on this board profess it does exactly that most of the time, and they feel damned if they do, and damned if they don't..(shrug). Maybe you guys should try to help out without having an alternate reason. You used to be like that you know...

Don't look for altruism, from US or any other country, including your own. Your post was very misleading.

Nation states work in their own interests, always have, always will. Not a US signpost, not by a long shot.

 

[Larkinn]

No. I don't for the simple reason I need to get to bed. There is enough here for you to figure it out.
Don't look for altruism, from US or any other country, including your own. Your post was very misleading.

Nation states work in their own interests, always have, always will. Not a US signpost, not by a long shot.

Other states have learned that working for the good of all often times works for themselves. As Grump said, the US used to know that...

 

[Annie]

Other states have learned that working for the good of all often times works for themselves. As Grump said, the US used to know that...

Please, give some links or examples, I'll check in tomorrow. Thanks.

 

[Larkinn]

Please, give some links or examples, I'll check in tomorrow. Thanks.

How working for the good of all equals the good of each individual country? Seriously? Try pretty much any treaty in existence.

And really...it'd be nice if you would anwser my questions before asking your own, but sure.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Care to expand on your Darwinian/biblical analogy. It is lost on me.

As for US interests only, that is why the rest of the world eyes you warily. You cannot be trusted to do the right thing for the right thing's sake, yet many on this board profess it does exactly that most of the time, and they feel damned if they do, and damned if they don't..(shrug). Maybe you guys should try to help out without having an alternate reason.

You used to be like that you know...

Yeah, hello? Marshal Plan?

Don't listen to her. Obviously, the inner core of the embittered neocon is showing. It also shows their lies about the Iraq war being about bringing freedom and democracy to the poor suffering iraqis. It was a lie, as her post very tellingly demonstrates. They don't care about other people; only US "interests"

Anyway, these neocons represent a minority of americans. Don't let this board give you the wrong impression. Its just that they wield the levers of government for 13 more months.

 

[Dr Grump]

No. I don't for the simple reason I need to get to bed. There is enough here for you to figure it out.
Don't look for altruism, from US or any other country, including your own. Your post was very misleading.

Nation states work in their own interests, always have, always will. Not a US signpost, not by a long shot.

Actually, if there was enough there for me to figure it out, I would. Just say you can't be bothered, or you just wrote stuff for the sake of it without really knowing what you meant, or move on.

Post is not misleading. It is both naive and insulting for you to suggest just because your country is run a certain way, that mine is too. That is a problem with most conservatives and neocons - they think everybody thinks like they do. Just like the ijits who got you involved in Iraq. They are so arrogant as to think a Jefferson republic/democracy will work in the ME. You think, if the neocons had learned anything from Vietnam, it would be, the world is not America.

You are right, it is not only a US signpost, but I'll think you'll find your attitude is more in line with non First world countries, than the majority of first world countries. Don't get me wrong, I know we do look after our own interests, but I would think developed societies have more of a conscience. There is a reason the likes of Australia, NZ, France, Sweden etc are NOT shitholes, have economies in the gutter or have a crappy standard of living...

 

[Dr Grump]

Yeah, hello? Marshal Plan?

Don't listen to her. Obviously, the inner core of the embittered neocon is showing. It also shows their lies about the Iraq war being about bringing freedom and democracy to the poor suffering iraqis. It was a lie, as her post very tellingly demonstrates. They don't care about other people; only US "interests"

Anyway, these neocons represent a minority of americans. Don't let this board give you the wrong impression. Its just that they wield the levers of government for 13 more months.

Oh, it's not lost on me at all. Other altrusitic examples are allowing the UN to be in NY, and there was no real reason for you to join WWI, yet you did so. I know the neocons are the minority. Bush's polls show this. The only election he won where more people wanted him than the other guy was 2004...In fact, I could be wrong, but he was the first president who's opponent (note I say opponent, not opponents) got more of the popular vote. I could be wrong on that one tho'

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Oh, it's not lost on me at all. Other altrusitic examples are allowing the UN to be in NY, and there was no real reason for you to join WWI, yet you did so. I know the neocons are the minority. Bush's polls show this. The only election he won where more people wanted him than the other guy was 2004...In fact, I could be wrong, but he was the first president who's opponent (note I say opponent, not opponents) got more of the popular vote. I could be wrong on that one tho'

Happened at least twice in the 1800's, we even had a President selected by the Congress. As per the rules of our Constitution. Popular vote has NEVER been how the President is elected, EVER. Further in every state absentee ballots are not counted if the number is to lower then the difference to win. This means well over 1 million votes were never counted. The claim Gore won the popular vote is simply unprovable since those votes were never counted.

 

[Gunny]

Yeah, hello? Marshal Plan?

Don't listen to her. Obviously, the inner core of the embittered neocon is showing. It also shows their lies about the Iraq war being about bringing freedom and democracy to the poor suffering iraqis. It was a lie, as her post very tellingly demonstrates. They don't care about other people; only US "interests"

Anyway, these neocons represent a minority of americans. Don't let this board give you the wrong impression. Its just that they wield the levers of government for 13 more months.

Blah, blah, blah ... rant, rant, rant ...

FYI, the Marshall Plan was based on complete miltiary subjugation of the occupied country, something you left-wingnut tree-huggers would have your panties so wound up about your voice would go up 2-3 octaves.

Fact: the rank and file Iraqi HAS more freedom than ever under Saddam. That of course would make you the liar.

Please DO stay around for 13 months. If the Dems win, I've got at least 4 years of payback ranting, whining, lying and ignoring fact, logic, common sense and/or the truth in favor of rhetoric waiting for you and your ilk.

 

[Annie]

Yeah, hello? Marshal Plan?

Don't listen to her. Obviously, the inner core of the embittered neocon is showing. It also shows their lies about the Iraq war being about bringing freedom and democracy to the poor suffering iraqis. It was a lie, as her post very tellingly demonstrates. They don't care about other people; only US "interests"

Anyway, these neocons represent a minority of americans. Don't let this board give you the wrong impression. Its just that they wield the levers of government for 13 more months.

The Marshall Plan was in the US interests, Hello! It was the response the US had wanted after WWI, but Europe wasn't interested, remember Treaty of Versailles? Hello? The materials were bought from the US, fueling our economy and helping in the aftermath of change in production post war.

It kept a worn out Western Europe from perhaps sliding into the communist sphere of influence, which was one of the fears of SOS Marshall. It also led directly to the shift towards the EU.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The UN, and EU are both cases in which states have given up sovreignity.

No more than, say, Texas.
And, members of the UN and EU may leave any time they want. If they had given up sovereignty, they could not do so. Both are - voluntary- associations, and both bodies only have the power that the ember states are willing to give it.

The treaty doesn't say "the initial steps to elimination". 40 years is a long time to fulfill a treaty.

And, given the complexity of the issue, the progress that has been made is rather remarkable. You also understand that the US cannot fully honor Article VI until certain other countries do the same.

No...International law is rarely enforced through force, however it often still has a lot of power. It is most definitely not meaningless and there has been a lot of success with playing the shame game.

That's not 'law' that's PR.

No...the ICC has jurisdiction over everyone.

So long as a country agrees to accept it, yes.
It is impossible for an extra-national organiozation to claim compelling jurisdiction over a state that does not agree to accept it.

Technically true, but a fairly irrelevant fact.

Except for the fact that, again, accepting UNSC commands is a voluntary act based on a voluntary association with the UN. The UNSC cannot compell anyone thatis not a member of the UN to do anything; membership to the UN denotes voluntary acceptance of UNSC demands.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Its sad that I had to say that and that saying "It is the single best tool out there to advance the cause of human rights" just wouldn't have sufficed. Pathetic.

Except that the UN doesnt give a hoot about human rights.

 

[Shogun]

The US and Israel are "fanatics"?
In the same context as the Iranians?



It amazes me that some people are SO screwed up that they see the US as the biggest problem facing the world.

have you tried to have a debate with a zionist while criticizing israel?

yes. the zionists who want Israel or Bust and the american christians trying to usher in the second coming by kissing jewish ass ARE fanatics. Which, just happens to be one of the largest voting blocs in 00 and 04 which gave us bush and the quickness to invade another muslim nation standard of foreign policy.


Go watch TBN and catch their "christians for zion" special sometime.

 

[Larkinn]

No more than, say, Texas.
And, members of the UN and EU may leave any time they want. If they had given up sovereignty, they could not do so. Both are - voluntary- associations, and both bodies only have the power that the ember states are willing to give it.

They haven't given up complete sovreignity, they have given up a decent amount of it however.

And, given the complexity of the issue, the progress that has been made is rather remarkable. You also understand that the US cannot fully honor Article VI until certain other countries do the same.

Of course...when its us who is breaching the treaty its "given the complexity of the issue, the progress that has been made is rather remarkable"...but no understanding if anyone else breaches.

That's not 'law' that's PR.

No...law is legally binding mandates, whether anyone will enforce them or not is a different matter. Its law, and that they are breaking the law can be used to shame them into not breaking the law.

So long as a country agrees to accept it, yes.
It is impossible for an extra-national organiozation to claim compelling jurisdiction over a state that does not agree to accept it.

Incorrect. Its not impossible because the ICC has done it. By the way, war crimes such as genocide are illegal everywhere...whether you are a UN member or not.

Except for the fact that, again, accepting UNSC commands is a voluntary act based on a voluntary association with the UN.

No, its not. They are in the UN and so the commands are binding.

The UNSC cannot compell anyone thatis not a member of the UN to do anything; membership to the UN denotes voluntary acceptance of UNSC demands.

Voluntary acceptance of someone elses future demands is called giving up autonomy or sovreignity.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They haven't given up complete sovreignity, they have given up a decent amount of it however.

Volutarily, with the knowledge they can take it back.
If you retain the right to take back the powers you have granted to others, you have, fully, retained your sovereignty.

Of course...when its us who is breaching the treaty its "given the complexity of the issue, the progress that has been made is rather remarkable"...but no understanding if anyone else breaches.

You were speaking of a specific article of the treaty -- article VI, disarmament -- and how the US has not complied with it.
Do you or do you not agree that:
-There have been necessary steps toward compliance
-That the US cannot fulfill its obigation here if other parties do not also fullfill theirs?

No...law is legally binding mandates...

If that's the case, then international law doesnt exist, as compliance is voluntary. Unless those in non-compliance can be -forced- to comply, then the law is irrelevant and menaingless.

Incorrect. Its not impossible because the ICC has done it.

If a country does nto accept the jurisdiction of the ICC then the ICC dopesnt have jurisdiction over that country.
http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/about/officialjournal/Rome_Statute_English.pdf
See article 4, 11, 12, 13.

Its that simple. Demands from the ICC carry no more weight in a contry that does not accept its jurisdiction than demads from you and me. Simply delcaring that you have jurisdiction over countries that do not agree you have jurisdiction means nothing.

No, its not. They are in the UN and so the commands are binding.

That's what -I- said.
YOU said the UNSC could compell a country to do something w/o its consent.
It can only force UN members; by being a member of the UN, you have given consent. Thus, commands from the UNSC are -always- directed towards countries that have given their consent to be compelled by the UNSC.

 

[Larkinn]

Volutarily, with the knowledge they can take it back.
If you retain the right to take back the powers you have granted to others, you have, fully, retained your sovereignty.

There is no clause for secession in the EU.

You were speaking of a specific article of the treaty -- article VI, disarmament -- and how the US has not complied with it.
Do you or do you not agree that:
-There have been necessary steps toward compliance
-That the US cannot fulfill its obigation here if other parties do not also fullfill theirs?

I do not agree with the first clause. You do not need to sign a treaty to reduce arms before you sign a treaty to get rid of arms. And the second is correct, but the US has not urged other states to fulfill their obligations.

If that's the case, then international law doesnt exist, as compliance is voluntary. Unless those in non-compliance can be -forced- to comply, then the law is irrelevant and menaingless.

Compliance with international law is NOT voluntary. You MUST do it. Let me draw a few analogies.

I rob a bank. I never get caught nor do I get punished. Is it now somehow legal to rob banks because I did so and wasn't punished? The law exists outside the punishment.

I jaywalk in NYC in front of a cop. He doesn't give a shit and I am not punished. Is it somehow legal to do so? Does that mean if I do it next time I won't get punished? No. By the way...the law doesn't *force* me not to jaywalk, even though its against the law. Even if it does punish me, it is providing a deterrent effect, not following me around and if I start to jaywalk cuffing me and throwing me onto the ground.

The lack of force behind a law does not mean the law does not exist. Nor does it make it irrelevant, as we have seen in the shame game. Because of those words and the PR campaign countries have changed their ways. How can you call that meaningless?

If a country does nto accept the jurisdiction of the ICC then the ICC dopesnt have jurisdiction over that country. Its that simple. Demands from the ICC carry no more weight in a contry that does not accept its jurisdiction than demads from you and me. Simply delcaring that you have jurisdiction over countries that do not agree you have jurisdiction means nothing.

This is simply not the way the world works anymore. The ICC has jurisdiction over the world and most countries acknowledge that. The fact that they do gives it power, influence, and the force it needs. If you haven't noticed, me and you don't exactly have the power of the UN or the ICC.

That's what -I- said.
YOU said the UNSC could compell a country to do something w/o its consent.
It can only force UN members; by being a member of the UN, you have given consent. Thus, commands from the UNSC are -always- directed towards countries that have given their consent to be compelled by the UNSC.

Yes...they gave their consent to do so in the PAST. And NOW the commands are binding and are NOT voluntary. As I said before, that is called giving up some autonomy or state sovreignity. They voluntarily submitted theirselves to the will of the UN...but because they have submitted themselves, that means they no longer have the autonomy to say no to the UNSC.

 

[Dr Grump]

The lack of force behind a law does not mean the law does not exist. Nor does it make it irrelevant, as we have seen in the shame game. Because of those words and the PR campaign countries have changed their ways. How can you call that meaningless? .

Bingo. Can you say Geneva Convention? And were the Nuremberg Trials a figment of my imagination? M14 is being deliberately obtuse to fit his ideal of how the world should be (for a change)..