Rumsfeld steps down

[kstar]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[jon1856]

http://cagle.com/news/RumsfeldResigns/

[DeltAlum]

Rumsfeld reminds me of Robert McNamara -- the Sec. of Defense during Vietnam.

I've seen what I consider to be parallels between the two conflicts ever since this latest one began -- which has bothered me all along.

In my judgement, civilians, even those with a lot of management experience and political savy, don't do well at dictating how to run wars to the professional military. There must be oversight, but the iron fist approach hasn't worked well.

ETA, that goes for Presidents, too.

[Rudey]

Newt was right. Had he been replaced 2 weeks ago, congress might have remained Republican.

I would only advocate a general that doesn't believe in ground troops and is OK with destroying cities with missiles. We give too much charity to people who don't deserve it.

-Rudey