quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

~FR~

When we're done proving we're all independent and shit, we're going to wake up one day and find we have no leadership in the world.

And that's going to work against our own interests. Other countries will be setting the agenda.

Short, to the point and entirely correct.

You don't gain influence by absenting yourself - you lose it, and that doesn't work for the best interests of the US or any other country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

~FR~

When we're done proving we're all independent and shit, we're going to wake up one day and find we have no leadership in the world.

And that's going to work against our own interests. Other countries will be setting the agenda.

Short, to the point and entirely correct.

You don't gain influence by absenting yourself - you lose it, and that doesn't work for the best interests of the US or any other country.

I think it is kind of interesting though that Russia lost it's seat on the counsel because of Syria and now we are saying we might forfeit ours as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

~FR~

When we're done proving we're all independent and shit, we're going to wake up one day and find we have no leadership in the world.

And that's going to work against our own interests. Other countries will be setting the agenda.

Short, to the point and entirely correct.

You don't gain influence by absenting yourself - you lose it, and that doesn't work for the best interests of the US or any other country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

~FR~

When we're done proving we're all independent and shit, we're going to wake up one day and find we have no leadership in the world.

And that's going to work against our own interests. Other countries will be setting the agenda.

We've been on the edge of that for years and the only thing that has delayed it is the power of US currency but in resent years that has been devalued (thanks in part to the Right's obstructionism) and once the world has switched to other "currencies" the US will nothing more than another 3rd world country.

But Trump is going fix all that and make America great again isn't he?
;-)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

~FR~

When we're done proving we're all independent and shit, we're going to wake up one day and find we have no leadership in the world.

And that's going to work against our own interests. Other countries will be setting the agenda.

We've been on the edge of that for years and the only thing that has delayed it is the power of US currency but in resent years that has been devalued (thanks in part to the Right's obstructionism) and once the world has switched to other "currencies" the US will nothing more than another 3rd world country.

But Trump is going fix all that and make America great again isn't he?
;-)

People here keep saying that the dollar has been devalued or will be devalued or will at anytime or at least, sometime soon basically...go to hell.

The dollar has been, still remains and will remain 80%+ of the world's reserve currency for as far as the eye can see and that means...a long, long time.

2012 Euro was about $1.40...now $1.07
2012 Swiss Franc was $1.15...now $1.00

2012 US GDP...$16.15 Trillion
2016 US GDP...$18.56 Trillion

If and when other countries switch to other currencies which means not only have they found a greater confidence in their own currency or another currency which would be extremely risky but have stopped or greatly reduced buying American products and also means they will no longer hold dollar based investments or cash reserves and will mean that US debt will become more expensive and costs will be more in line with historical norms...not prohibitively high.

So no, not for many, many years will the US be reduced to 3rd world economic status. US political vagaries and partisanship has over time, had little effect on its economic fundamentals, growth or the long term viability of the dollar, exports, needs and strength.

Economically the US has been great, is great now and will continue...to be great.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

So no, not for many, many years will the US be reduced to 3rd world economic status. US political vagaries and partisanship has over time, had little effect on its economic fundamentals, growth or the long term viability of the dollar, exports, needs and strength.

Economically the US has been great, is great now and will continue...to be great.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
The UN was created in 1945 for one main purpose: to stop a third major power war. So far, it and the potential nuclear Armageddon have been successful.
The world has never been more interconnected with such speed of communications. The UN provides a place to pause and air grievances.
It is helpful to remember that any UN action can be stopped by the vote of only one of five major contributor nations. However, here is a list of forty-eight UN accomplishments published in 2012.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
The UN was created in 1945 for one main purpose: to stop a third major power war. So far, it and the potential nuclear Armageddon have been successful.
The world has never been more interconnected with such speed of communications. The UN provides a place to pause and air grievances.
It is helpful to remember that any UN action can be stopped by the vote of only one of five major contributor nations. However, here is a list of forty-eight UN accomplishments published in 2012.

Please cite credible proof that the UN has prevented a "third major power war."

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
The UN was created in 1945 for one main purpose: to stop a third major power war. So far, it and the potential nuclear Armageddon have been successful.
The world has never been more interconnected with such speed of communications. The UN provides a place to pause and air grievances.
It is helpful to remember that any UN action can be stopped by the vote of only one of five major contributor nations. However, here is a list of forty-eight UN accomplishments published in 2012.

Please cite credible proof that the UN has prevented a "third major power war."

What sort of credible proof would you require to prove a negative?
Twenty years elapsed between WW1 and WW2. Seventy-two years have passed since the last major powers war. Pretty good so far, hey?
So, can you prove that the forum of the United Nations was not instrumental in maintaining the peace?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
The only thing that has prevented a 3rd WW was the atom bombs we used in Japan. No one wants to take the risk of nuclear war.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
The UN was created in 1945 for one main purpose: to stop a third major power war. So far, it and the potential nuclear Armageddon have been successful.
The world has never been more interconnected with such speed of communications. The UN provides a place to pause and air grievances.
It is helpful to remember that any UN action can be stopped by the vote of only one of five major contributor nations. However, here is a list of forty-eight UN accomplishments published in 2012.

Please cite credible proof that the UN has prevented a "third major power war."

What sort of credible proof would you require to prove a negative?

Twenty years elapsed between WW1 and WW2. Seventy-two years have passed since the last major powers war. Pretty good so far, hey?

So, can you prove that the forum of the United Nations was not instrumental in maintaining the peace?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

FR

WHy is it the UN wasnt in agreement with the iraq war?
Prior to 2002, the Security Council had passed 16 resolutions on Iraq. In 2002, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441.

In 2003, the governments of the US, Britain, and Spain proposed another resolution on Iraq, which they called the "eighteenth resolution" and others called the "second resolution." This proposed resolution was subsequently withdrawn when it became clear that several permanent members of the Council would cast 'no' votes on any new resolution, thereby vetoing it.[1] Had that occurred, it would have become even more difficult for those wishing to invade Iraq to argue that the Council had authorized the subsequent invasion. Regardless of the threatened or likely vetoes, it seems that the coalition at no time was assured any more than four affirmative votes in the Council—the US, Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria—well short of the requirement for nine affirmative votes.[2]

On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."[3]
Prior to 2002, the Security Council had passed 16 resolutions on Iraq. In 2002, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441.

In 2003, the governments of the US, Britain, and Spain proposed another resolution on Iraq, which they called the "eighteenth resolution" and others called the "second resolution." This proposed resolution was subsequently withdrawn when it became clear that several permanent members of the Council would cast 'no' votes on any new resolution, thereby vetoing it.[1] Had that occurred, it would have become even more difficult for those wishing to invade Iraq to argue that the Council had authorized the subsequent invasion. Regardless of the threatened or likely vetoes, it seems that the coalition at no time was assured any more than four affirmative votes in the Council—the US, Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria—well short of the requirement for nine affirmative votes.[2]

On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
Wiki link

So if the UN had agreed with the US and the UK on iraq, it could definitely have been a world war.
As well now we have a situation of certain people not knowing the difference between the security council and the human rights parts of the UN.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NoirMetal

You mean the human rights council with countries that stone women for adultery, throw gays from buildings, and slice your fingers to chutney for reading a bible, and have sex with goats? How much has our influence in the council improved things for human rights in THOSE places?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: NoirMetal

You mean the human rights council with countries that stone women for adultery, throw gays from buildings, and slice your fingers to chutney for reading a bible, and have sex with goats? How much has our influence in the council improved things for human rights in THOSE places?

Yeah, we better just forget the whole thing and let them get on with it.

Good plan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

...and that plan is to stop the only plan that at least does something, with nothing to replace it.

Typical "thinking" from Trump/Bannon.