UN & NATO

UN & NATO (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

caitlyn -> UN & NATO (3/14/2007 10:43:20 AM)
My view is that the United Nations has crossed the line between being a tool to avoid wars, and is now firmly in the camp of organized and polarized alliance groups. Eventually these alliances will lead us to another First World War like scenario. NATO is still effective, but the purpose behind it, no longer exists. In an effort to keep its value, new mandates have been invented. It's only a matter of time, before this organization gets used for the wrong reasons (which has already been attempted by one powerful member). I think the United States should give up its membership in the United Nations, and leave the NATO alliance. Please note that this is NOT a call towards isolationism ... as a matter of fact, I believe this would make the United States more cooperative with other nations. Opinions welcome (because I know they will come anyway [;)][;)])

popeye1250 -> RE: UN & NATO (3/14/2007 11:00:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn My view is that the United Nations has crossed the line between being a tool to avoid wars, and is now firmly in the camp of organized and polarized alliance groups. Eventually these alliances will lead us to another First World War like scenario. NATO is still effective, but the purpose behind it, no longer exists. In an effort to keep its value, new mandates have been invented. It's only a matter of time, before this organization gets used for the wrong reasons (which has already been attempted by one powerful member). I think the United States should give up its membership in the United Nations, and leave the NATO alliance. Please note that this is NOT a call towards isolationism ... as a matter of fact, I believe this would make the United States more cooperative with other nations. Opinions welcome (because I know they will come anyway [;)][;)]) Caitlyn, it's very tough to argue against you on these points. I, and most American Citizens I think would and do agree with you. It's called "Mission Creep" having one purpose then having that purpose solved then taking on another whole different purpose from the origonal. Nato should have been dissolved after the old Soviet Union collapsed. I mean, they "won." Game over. However, one thing that we know is that all beauracracies seek to "perpetuate" themselves. You don't think all those thousands of "employees" associated with NATO making $80k for sitting in air conditioned offices writing memos to each other and having "killer" benefits packages on the backs of the Taxpayers want to give that shit up and have to go out into the D.P.S. (Dreaded Private Sector) and actually have to "produce" somthing do you? Then there's all the "contractors" who sell NATO stuff and who are also making a lot of money off of the backs of Taxpayers! They all have a "Good Thing" going for themselves! Who do WE, as Taxpayers think we are, trying to mess up their Gravy Train?

Aubre -> RE: UN & NATO (3/14/2007 11:12:30 AM)
I agree with you too.

caitlyn -> RE: UN & NATO (3/14/2007 11:18:48 AM)
And lets be fair about this. The United States wants to use both organizations as an instument of American foreign policy. Shockingly, the other members aren't all that interested in this, which is their right. Entire elections in some European countries and dominated by platforms promissing to oppose the United States in these two organizations. It's madness. The useful purpose for both these organizations has past. The United Nations could still be useful, providing the huge monolithic powerhouse, got out. With the United States "in" all that can really happen is an us against them scenario. What does that accomplish. If American foreign policy can't stand on it's own, with as powerful as we are ... perhaps we need to rethink our policy.

FirmhandKY -> RE: UN & NATO (3/14/2007 11:21:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn My view is that the United Nations has crossed the line between being a tool to avoid wars, and is now firmly in the camp of organized and polarized alliance groups. Eventually these alliances will lead us to another First World War like scenario. NATO is still effective, but the purpose behind it, no longer exists. In an effort to keep its value, new mandates have been invented. It's only a matter of time, before this organization gets used for the wrong reasons (which has already been attempted by one powerful member). I think the United States should give up its membership in the United Nations, and leave the NATO alliance. Please note that this is NOT a call towards isolationism ... as a matter of fact, I believe this would make the United States more cooperative with other nations. Opinions welcome (because I know they will come anyway [;)][;)]) caitlyn, I have to agree with you on both issues. But, I also think, regardless of how "non-isolationists" we may be, the end affect of both actions would likely cause greater isolationism for the US - at least with Europe. Or, if not "isolationism" per se, I think it would polarize the world into a multi-power system, and cause the explicit formation of a new block of powers that shared some cultural, economic and political concerns. I'd suggest a block of US/Aussie/English/Japan/India as the core, with Latin and South America as "tag alongs" for the most part, and a focus on the Pacific region rather than a European one. Canada would likely be part of this, but that is far from certain. You might want to google "Anglo-sphere" as well. There is a fair amount of theorizing and discussion along this point. Historically, this would place the US back to it's anti-European roots (let 'em rot in their own problems), and likely result in a rather unsettling change in European outlook on military force and it's use. Truthfully, I don't think this is a bad thing for the US, although it would likely result in European wars, and Africa becoming a battleground again as Europe, Russia and China struggle to exploit the continent's resources. I think the draw of oil is one of the things that will keep the US involved for a while, until our reliance on mid-east oil is reduced with new technologies over time. Which I'm confident will happen, although we are talking decades. The overall picture of the world circa-2050 will see this, I'd bet, with the US focused more to the East and South, and leaving much of the Eurasian, African, and Middle Eastern countries to work out all of their historical problems among themselves. Which I'm all for. FirmKY

Real0ne -> RE: UN & NATO (3/14/2007 11:23:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn My view is that the United Nations has crossed the line between being a tool to avoid wars, and is now firmly in the camp of organized and polarized alliance groups. Eventually these alliances will lead us to another First World War like scenario. NATO is still effective, but the purpose behind it, no longer exists. In an effort to keep its value, new mandates have been invented. It's only a matter of time, before this organization gets used for the wrong reasons (which has already been attempted by one powerful member). I think the United States should give up its membership in the United Nations, and leave the NATO alliance. Please note that this is NOT a call towards isolationism ... as a matter of fact, I believe this would make the United States more cooperative with other nations. Opinions welcome (because I know they will come anyway [;)][;)]) It's called "Mission Creep" having one purpose then having that purpose solved then taking on another whole different purpose from the origonal. Nato should have been dissolved after the old Soviet Union collapsed. I mean, they "won." Game over. yes its also called bait and switch! the "UN" as they put it in the fucking hilarious movie IDIOCRACY, was created by the "corporation" and is for the purpose of the corporation. Their mission is a one world government of which they are in control of, a moneyless system of creditors with them as the bank, and a feudal society with only priviledges and NOT unalienable rights. Proof? Tell me which right you think you have and i will prove to you its not a right by recent legislation! they are bye bye! Welcome to priviledges and fuedalism under the "UN" and cfr etc!

popeye1250 -> RE: UN & NATO (3/14/2007 12:02:38 PM)
Firmhand, a little isolationism is a GOOD thing! Not a lot of people are aware of it but The New York Times reported back in 1999 I think under the Clinton Admin. the "U.N." "aquired" a Pension Fund of over $30 B dollars! I called my congressman's office a few years back and they said that, "Congress never appropriated any money for "U.N." pensions!" So,...where did that money come from? And the article said "Dollars", not "Rubles", Drachma", or Lire". And we're not talking about $30k pensions with matched-payment medical care like Police and Fire personel get! These are "tax-free" pensions of $125,000 per year with benefits that CEO's get! So does this mean that U.S. Taxpayers are paying the pensions of foreign beaurocrats now? Anyone know?

Real0ne -> RE: UN & NATO (3/14/2007 12:18:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Historically, this would place the US back to it's anti-European roots (let 'em rot in their own problems), and likely result in a rather unsettling change in European outlook on military force and it's use. Truthfully, I don't think this is a bad thing for the US, although it would likely result in European wars, and Africa becoming a battleground again as Europe, Russia and China struggle to exploit the continent's resources. I think the draw of oil is one of the things that will keep the US involved for a while, until our reliance on mid-east oil is reduced with new technologies over time. Which I'm confident will happen, although we are talking decades. The overall picture of the world circa-2050 will see this, I'd bet, with the US focused more to the East and South, and leaving much of the Eurasian, African, and Middle Eastern countries to work out all of their historical problems among themselves. Which I'm all for. FirmKY Never happen. the people running our government has their roots in isreal through britain, do some geneality work and you will find this out, so unless something is done about status quo its us, britain and isreal till death do we part. What you are suggesting is the exact opposite to what is good for the people. that works great for the corportations. Consolidation is never good for the welfare of the people. Look at the feds "corporation" who have removed our inalienable rights and replaced them with priviledges and are getting away with it because the feds control the school system and we are to stoopid to know the difference! No the solution is to have a situation as we do here in the us, where they divide the world up into several sovereign states and no federal government or singular overseer which has been the pit of all evils of this country. Maybe a regional states mediator as a scorekeeper. Staggered elections so no one can arrange to have a group of their men get in simultaneously as we have now in washington. Consolidation of governement or power is corruption of government and power. Let the individual states duke it out in each supreme court for that state and for world issues have members of each state supreme court based on population for a world court to write international law where each law has to be ratified by popular vote from ALL states in a FULLY accountable paper trail. 21 man state based jury can overturn international law and 21 man county jury can overturn a state law and require review on the state law and require review but not overturn international law. The only communal property, hiways, energy and resources can be managed by the state who are our "employees" and will provide full accounting for EVERYFUCKINGTHING they do. Make them punch a clock too just to remind them that they work for us! LOL Consolidation is wrong and all it will do is build tensions leading to eventual war between the factions. A world union of sovereign states with sovereigrn citizens is the right way to go, each with their own militia and separation from the "one" as it is the most difficult form of government to overtake by any NWO power hungry interest leaching debt bastards that are sucking us dry. Anyway something along those lines would be a start to a truly decent world to live in. Maybe a little inconvenient but decent. This will have much positive fallout as people will now be forced into understanding government, welfare programs can be done charitibly rather than fraudulaently through force and we can have everything we do now just not under some singular overseers control and keep our sovereignity as well as everyone elses in the progress. i forgot to add a means of controlling our representives, anyway this obviouls can go on and on and get pretty deep far more than i would like to delve into in a forum

meatcleaver -> RE: UN & NATO (3/14/2007 12:49:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Truthfully, I don't think this is a bad thing for the US, although it would likely result in European wars, and Africa becoming a battleground again as Europe, Russia and China struggle to exploit the continent's resources. I rather think that this is wishful thinking on your part. Europe is a very different beast to the pre-WWII Europe. Russia might be struggling with its new role but it sees itself as part of western European culture. It has only been a semocracy for ten years or so but even Putin doesn't want a schism in Europe and Europe doesn't see Russia through American paranoid eyes. I have to agree I think NATO has run its course and dissolving it will speed up a EU joint foreign and defence policy. It will see the exit of US forces in Europe and no more provocative military installations in sensitive areas of the continent that have no defence value to Europeans. As for the UN. With the rise of China, India and Russia, I can't see how the US can have a foreign policy without it. Bi-lateral agreements only go so far and are rarely top priority to none neighbouring countries.

pahunkboy -> RE: UN & NATO (3/14/2007 12:56:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY As for the UN. With the rise of China, India and Russia, I can't see how the US can have a foreign policy without it. Bi-lateral agreements only go so far and are rarely top priority to none neighbouring countries. Bingo. NATO- is evlving into an east meets west thing. the UN? hmmm. who can notice with the fallout of NAFTA, GATT, etc.

caitlyn -> RE: UN & NATO (3/14/2007 1:11:21 PM)
I doubt any sane person would want European war, but many people feel that a leopard will rarely change its stripes. One person's paranoia, is another's rose colored glasses.

FirmhandKY -> RE: UN & NATO (3/14/2007 2:07:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn I doubt any sane person would want European war, but many people feel that a leopard will rarely change its stripes. One person's paranoia, is another's rose colored glasses. hehe .... BINGO! People are people. Basic human nature is rather difficult to change, although it can be guided and controlled by social structures - somewhat. I'm not wishing for wars in Europe. I hope they wouldn't happen. But the entire history of Europe is one of blood-shed and war. The period since the end of WWII is one of the few periods of generational peace. Just so happens, that is the same time frame of US "occupation" and interest in keeping the peace. Europe is currently an economical driven engine. But, remove the engine's governor, and ham-footed drivers will just follow their nature. FirmKY

Vendaval -> RE: UN & NATO (3/14/2007 2:08:33 PM)
I understand your point, caitlyn. But I also have major concerns about the US pulling out of both NATO and the UN would cause a serious vacuum of power that could very well be filled by worse infighting and corruption.

ferryman777 -> RE: UN & NATO (3/14/2007 2:23:54 PM)
Boy, was James Madison right or what? Wasn't he the drummer for Jimie Hendrix? oh, I know, played quarterback for the Houston Oilers.

FirmhandKY -> RE: UN & NATO (3/14/2007 2:24:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver As for the UN. With the rise of China, India and Russia, I can't see how the US can have a foreign policy without it. Bi-lateral agreements only go so far and are rarely top priority to none neighbouring countries. Maybe you've missed it, meat, with all of your other postings about evil Amerika in the Middle East and Europe, but you might want to do a little research about the Bush (American) foreign policy initatives with India, Japan and Australia. And, again, google "Anglosphere". I think you'll find examples of major changes happening right under your nose. FirmKY

FirmhandKY -> RE: UN & NATO (3/14/2007 2:34:18 PM)
Real0ne, I'm sorry, but I read your post twice, and failed to see anything that related to either my post or the threads topic. FirmKY

caitlyn -> RE: UN & NATO (3/14/2007 3:19:45 PM)
I just feel that the United Nations is useless. It may be, that it's useless because the United States tries too hard to control it. Events like those that happened in the Balkans, would be funny, if they were not so sad. Any attempt to make some good happen on the floor of the UN, were basically snuffed by France, who really has no place as a permanent member of the Security Council at this point. So, nothing happens, until the United Stated (also not lilly white in this matter), forces the hand of NATO, and takes action. France contributed nothing to the efforts in the Balkans, but insisted on having a say as to bombing targets, etc ... After 9/11, the United States military decided to go it alone in Afghanistan, even when NATO offered help, mostly because they remembered what a pain the fucking ass the French were in the Balkans. The French, naturally, were offended (and to be fair, perhaps rightfully so), and the rest just is, what it is. So, the United Nations and NATO, as they exist today, is either: a) useless and inept. b) useless and inept, because the Americans want to control everything. Either way ... we should leave ... because at this point, there is really good no reason to stay.

Real0ne -> RE: UN & NATO (3/14/2007 4:50:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Real0ne, I'm sorry, but I read your post twice, and failed to see anything that related to either my post or the threads topic. FirmKY oh thats ok no apology needed i understand.

Sinergy -> RE: UN & NATO (3/14/2007 4:59:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn I just feel that the United Nations is useless. It may be, that it's useless because the United States tries too hard to control it. The countries which won world war 1, and later the nuclear capable countries, convinced the UN to provide them with veto power over anything that the UN might decide. This is why Milosevic can be brought up before a war crimes tribunal, but Cheney and Bush wont be. It is not just the United States that tries to control it. Too many sovereign nations are unwilling to allow the United Nations to have any control over their policies and actions. Sinergy

popeye1250 -> RE: UN & NATO (3/14/2007 5:28:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn I just feel that the United Nations is useless. It may be, that it's useless because the United States tries too hard to control it. The countries which won world war 1, and later the nuclear capable countries, convinced the UN to provide them with veto power over anything that the UN might decide. This is why Milosevic can be brought up before a war crimes tribunal, but Cheney and Bush wont be. It is not just the United States that tries to control it. Too many sovereign nations are unwilling to allow the United Nations to have any control over their policies and actions. Sinergy That's true Sinergy. The "U.N." is like a crazed eunich running around threatening "rape!" Even the girls laugh at him. It would be impossable to "fix" the "U.N." I just don't want my tax dollars wasted on useless beauracracies like this to pay exorbitant salaries to paper shufflers. There was that "Darfur" ad on again tonight telling Bush to "do something." Why are they asking the U.S. to "do something" in a country 7,000 miles away? Where's the U.N.?" That's their job, not the job of the U.S.! The "U.N." gets a "pass" again while they eat fancy cakes at "High Tea?" And they DEFINATELY need to get out of NYC. Fifty some odd years there is enough!

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125