Rumsfeld steps down

shinerbock · #1 11-08-2006, 06:34 PM

RA, I imagine Bolton is far more intelligent than you, so I don't think "moron" reflects well upon yourself. I like his arrogance, I know those in the foreign community would prefer America fund the UN and give it legitimacy without demanding a voice, but thankfully with Bolton that isn't the case.

RACooper · #2 11-08-2006, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

RA, I imagine Bolton is far more intelligent than you, so I don't think "moron" reflects well upon yourself. I like his arrogance, I know those in the foreign community would prefer America fund the UN and give it legitimacy without demanding a voice, but thankfully with Bolton that isn't the case.

Being intelligent doesn't mean that one isn't a moron or ignorant - after Bush is supposedly intelligent...

Arrogance is one of the worst traits a diplomat can have, so I don't see how it can impress you... as for the UN funding - well as a foreigner I was happy to see Clinton pay off the US debts, and Bush to continue some funding. While yes the US deserves a voice, an important voice even, at the UN - that doesn't mean that it should be the leading or demanding voice; no country should have that at the UN.

shinerbock · #3 11-08-2006, 07:34 PM

RA, when the UN begins to represent US interests like it does the enemies of the US, maybe we'll care more.

RACooper · #4 11-08-2006, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

RA, when the UN begins to represent US interests like it does the enemies of the US, maybe we'll care more.

Well then I guess you and others like you will never care - because you're missing the point that the UN isn't supposed to represent US or any other one particular country's intrests; it's supposed to represent the interests of the global community.

pinkies up · #5 11-08-2006, 08:23 PM

Buh-bye!!! *PARTY* Dummy Rummy is gone!!!

RACooper · #6 11-08-2006, 09:05 PM

Hahahaha

Sorry but I'm at RCMI doing planning for Friday's and Saturday's ceremonies... and some of the "happier" members here just did a rendition of 'Ding Dong The Witch is Dead' dedicated to Rummy... I almost don't have the heart to ruin their fun by telling them that Rummy's departure won't mean the end of partisan reps from the Pentagon...

shinerbock · #7 11-08-2006, 09:21 PM

RA, I see some of what you're saying, the UN doesn't really need to stick up for the US. However, they take action that is not only not in our best interest, but often seriously opposed to it.

kstar · #8 11-09-2006, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

RA, I imagine Bolton is far more intelligent than you, so I don't think "moron" reflects well upon yourself. I like his arrogance, I know those in the foreign community would prefer America fund the UN and give it legitimacy without demanding a voice, but thankfully with Bolton that isn't the case.

Fund the UN? Do you have any idea how far behind the US is in paying their UN dues? I'm surprised we still have a vote in the UN, or that they haven't deemed us an an aggressive nation or what ever the term they use is.

shinerbock · #9 11-09-2006, 01:54 AM

Kstar, the fact that we "owe" the UN money doesn't mean we're not giving it any. The US donates manpower, equipment, weapons, ships...while most other countries get reimbursed. We're also the largest donor to UN agencies like UNICEF.

Say you started a group which benefits you little, but others a lot. You allow the group to meet at your house. Members in the group even start doing things that are bad for you. They disrespect your house, and get away with it. All while you pay a quarter of the bills for the group, while other wealthy people, who benefit from the group 1000 times more than you, pay a much smaller fraction of the costs...= the UN

kstar · #10 11-09-2006, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Kstar, the fact that we "owe" the UN money doesn't mean we're not giving it any. The US donates manpower, equipment, weapons, ships...while most other countries get reimbursed. We're also the largest donor to UN agencies like UNICEF.

Say you started a group which benefits you little, but others a lot. You allow the group to meet at your house. Members in the group even start doing things that are bad for you. They disrespect your house, and get away with it. All while you pay a quarter of the bills for the group, while other wealthy people, who benefit from the group 1000 times more than you, pay a much smaller fraction of the costs...= the UN

The idea is that the UN benefits everyone in the world, it might not be directly, but the whole world benefits from the UN. And if anyone has a problem with showing respect, it is the US. We, as a nation, disregarded the UN and didn't let UN weapon's inspectors do their jobs, instead starting a war with another member state. A war that was started on "faulty intelligence" remember?

Where did I state or imply that we haven't paid anything? As the richest nation in the world, we should have to pay more than others. I think it's deplorable that we're in arrears while nations that are broke pay an extremely high percentage of their national budgets to be members.

KSig RC · #11 11-09-2006, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kstar

We, as a nation, disregarded the UN and didn't let UN weapon's inspectors do their jobs, instead starting a war with another member state. A war that was started on "faulty intelligence" remember?

You can't be serious here - the "faulty intelligence" is literally the only thing I agree with, or did you forget the 100% corruption involved in the Oil-for-Food shitshow, the lack of backbone for weapons inspectors over the course of a decade, etc etc etc?

Let's not pretend like the UN had any sort of efficacy, control or even a viable plan with Iraq prior to the war - and I'm not arguing 'better off' vs. 'worse off' or anything, but you're being intentionally reductive here because it suits your point.

This is, ironically, similar to how shiner claims member nations take advantage of the US position in the UN, no?

shinerbock · #12 11-09-2006, 09:43 AM

If the UN resolutions had any backing, we might not have had to go to war. I also disagree with the idea that simply because we're the wealthiest means we should give 25%. Once we establish fairtax for the US, maybe we can get a reasonable "dues" bracket for the UN. Or, we could just leave, which I'm ok with.

AlexMack · #13 11-09-2006, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

If the UN resolutions had any backing, we might not have had to go to war.

This I agreed with and was the reason for initial support of invading Iraq. I haven't agreed with the war for about 2-3 years now, but when we going in initially this was part of my thought process.
Also I tried to join the army in 2003 and would have ended up there. Thank god I'm permanently disqualified.
See, I wasn't always such a hippie liberal.