Seen the day..

Throughout my relatively young life, people were always talking about the day the great America falls. They would always say: "America is the new Rome. They are too greedy and too corrupt. They will fall apart eventually. Their economy will be the end of them" And I remember always kind of ignoring them, being all "yeah, sure" and moving on with my day. The day America falls apart? It was like the Apocalypse: always pending, but never really arrives. Impossible. It's just the talk of an envious jealous bunch.

And then the day came and proved the envious jealous bunch right: America did fall apart, thanks to an implosion in its economy, finally. But what those sooth-sayers and predicters of doom failed to forsee that when America decided to fall apart, it took all of us down with it. Their economy is too big, globalization, international financial markets and free trade linked us all to them, and now we are all hoping for signs of american recovery, because that's when we will know that this economic crisis is on its way out. Hell, one could go a step further and say that it's in our best interest to help the american economy recover, because it's the only way the rest of us will recover as well. Ok, so we don't have to actually improve the american economy, but let's try to be gentler and nicer with it from now on. Like, when you see America walking down the street, invite it in for some tea and cookies. If it's under the weather, go with it to the doctor. And always always try to help repair its self esteem, because it's very bruised and batterd at this point. In other words, show that you care, even if you don't. Fake it if you have to, but help them get through this. It's for your own self-interest.

Comments

  1. Times have changed. We live in a global economy. Our fates are intertwined. We are all in this together. It’s time we started all thinking that way :)

  2. Americans may be corrupt. But, compared to who!? lol. I honestly can’t think of a society that has less systematic corruption than ours, and I’ve been around. I suggest that jealous folks who think we are greedy and corrupt should maybe look around wherever it is that they live, eh? And we work our asses off too. Everyone else works hours and calls it a 6 hour day… we work 10 hours and call it an 8 hour day. Who else does that? Nobody. Not even the Japanese.

  3. Craig,
    I totally feel you man, it’s really frustrating to spend 10 hours a day commenting and bickering on this blog then call it 6 hours of work, you’re so being used and taken advantage of.

  4. I totally feel you man, it’s really frustrating to spend 10 hours a day commenting and bickering on this blog…

    Dude, I hardly spend any time at all commenting on blogs anymore. 15 today, if that. And I haven’t even looked at a since last week.

    Compare that to chatting with Twosret. You know, she never shuts up? Have you ever chatted with her? 5 or 6 hours at a time – gone. Down the tubes. And she’s such a fucking gossip, too. There’s never been a point where I spent more time on the blogs than i spent chatting with Twosret per day. Never. And if there had been, I’d still be able to claim that time spent on blogs is far more productive than listening to Twosret complain about everything for hour after hour.

    …then call it 6 hours of work, you’re so being used and taken advantage of.

    Yeah, well, I’ve been self-employed since about year 2000 so who am I taking advantage of? Myself? Pretty sure Twosret works for her husband, when she works at all. Who do you work for, Mohamed? Walmart? Or do you own a 7-11 franchise?

    Adn what does this personal attack have to do with the fact that American workers are the most productive, or my claim that American society is the least corrupt? You’re just that kind of guy who says things like “America is corrupt and Americans are fat and lazy” even though you know damn good and well that Egyptians are more obese, more lethargic and more corrupt (<—understatement of the century) than just about any other society on the planet. Am I right? I’m right. Admit it :P

    Notice that the accusations of being corrupt and greedy always come from the third world. The Europeans know better. Third Worlders don’t, because they’ve been living in shit for so long they don’t even realize it isn’t a shit planet. Even you – you moved to the US, and brought your shit with you instead of doing the sensible thing and leaving it behind. Again, I’m right, aren’t I? Course I am.

  5. Ah, but I would say 90% of America’s corruption is located in Louisiana.

  6. Ah…you finally discovered the madness to our method! Fake one for me, please, you know you need to!

    Such wit! You really should have made a run for POTUS.

  7. EgyPeter says:

    Wishful thinking ‘arabs’ better hope for a lot more than a financial crisis to bring down America. LOL.

    Sorry to all you America-haters but the US’s status as sole superpower is not changing anytime soon. And we can all thank God for that.

  8. Xylo, you’re off a bit. It’s split between Louisiana, Illinois and Washington DC.

  9. “Ah, but I would say 90% of America’s corruption is located in Louisiana.”

    Uhm … Chicago.

    Words of wisdom EgyPeter! Wishing for America’s demise has come home to roost in their own neighborhoods. Be careful what you wish for, schradenfreude bites ‘em on the ass!! LOL

  10. Craig,
    Man, the Klan meeting you’ve attended last night really got you all worked up.

  11. Xylo, yeah, Louisiana has corrupt politicians, especially in New Orleans—but these folks are plain obvious. True corruption is seldom so conspicuous. Those who are truly corrupt usually have the resources for good PR.
    Chicago is my guess for very corrupt—entire state of Illinois to be exact. What about that loser governor who tried, among other things, to sell Obama’s Senate seat? The guy was obvious though—a fool.
    Unfortunately, there is corruption everywhere…

  12. I don’t think anyone of us needs to rush out to offer an American a cup of tea. Simply because America will recover, on its own.

    It wont be a miracle that will amaze us all, it will simply be the result of a global economy whose scale has long been tipped in favor of the great U.S.A.
    I know you probably dont believe me, but what we call ‘wasta’ in Egypt; i.e. hookups, is what the USA has with the IMF, WB, WTO, etc.

    The States lost its money temporarily in a game of Monopoly, but it will soon get it back because it made-up the rules of the game in the first place.
    Ha ha suckers.

  13. Of all the countries in the world that could have super-power status, the USA is on the list of most benevolent. One day, your children and grand-children will witness China taking on the role the USA now fills, and they will long for the “good old times.” :)

  14. Can anyone help explaining doe the global economy make any sense at all? if the G20 are suffuring such a huge loss being described and commenetd on extensively, WHO IS GAINING ? in any closed system one (or more)segements losses must add up to gains in one or mor other segments in the system. To say they are all loosing makes no sense!!!

    On another point, the US defines its own currency. They don’t base it on Gold or other specified resources. What would prevent the government of issuing credit to itself,initiate government run projects (e.g infrastructure) then hire more American tax payers to balance the credit with taxes and purchases?

  15. Craig, why do you randomly decide to insult twosret when she had nothing to do with anything MOhamed said? You’re so obsessed it’s like you’re 8 years old, and being self-employed doesn’t mean shit. Taco truck vendors are self-employed for crying out loud.

  16. Patrick,
    Notice the semantics, instead of using I’ve got my own company, he said “self employed” which is, as you’ve observed totally means a Taco truck vendor, except that he most probably hates Mexicans.

  17. “Notice the semantics, instead of using I’ve got my own company, he said “self employed””

    I’ve been “self employed” for 23 years now, yesterday when I sent off my taxes to the IRS I paid the biggest chunk to the “self employment” tax clause in our current tax code because I’m “self employed”. There is no “I’ve got my own company” line item in the current tax code, there is however a “self employment” tax for those of us who are lucky enough or foolish enough to be “self employed”. If some one does own their own company, they would know that.

    Most “Taco” guys I know pull in from $1500 to $4500 a day! Up at 2am and work till past 6 pm to get ready for the next day, I doubt if you could hold a candle to most “Taco” guys Patrick! ; D

    I do however completely agree with your Twosret statement!

  18. Craig, why do you randomly decide to insult twosret…

    I’m just following the Bush doctrine, Patrick. And my attacks on Twosret are not “random” – Mohamed is her creature, and whenever he gets into trouble she is sure to be there.

  19. No doubt you’d follow the Bush doctrine Craig, it’s totally natural for buffoons to follow their fellow buffoons.

  20. …it’s totally natural for buffoons to follow their fellow buffoons.

    That explains the Sand Ape, Mohamed, Twosret situation nicely :P

  21. great depression-survived, mortgage and loan crisis-survived, world war two-survived, ww1-survived, civil war-survived, two bush presidencies-survived, english imperialism-survived, non-socialized healthcare-survived, soviet imperialism-survived, islamic imperialism (or maybe it is, 1.2 billion muslims) isn’t as dire a threat as an industrialized Germany or Japan (for any islamist romantic consumed with dreams of paradise and martyrdom). The Japanese around ww2 believed that their spiritual strength would carry the day against western forces, their suicide bombers, kamikaze, got them two nuked cities, little toy nuke compared to today’s fuckin’ monsters. As example, given the body counts ratio of say mujaheddin to Allied (Wounderfull ww2 ring to it) forces in iraq, 1.5 billion muslims equals a couple of dead school crossing guards and a small gerbil named Howard as Allied casualties in the event of total war between Western crusaders (This one is just funny) and the islamic world (god forbid) Anti-Americanism, let’s face it is fun and entertaining for the whole family, who hasn’t spent happy hours chanting “death to America” But, the reality is that those dumb yanks have shouldered the weight of Freedom’s preservation for well over 3 quarters of a century. Democracy isn’t so much paradise, but a daily battle against corruption, incompetence, apathy, tyranny, and a host of other insidious idiocies. As walking is really just falling forward, recovering your balance and falling forward again.

  22. Cameron,
    Are you the Jesus freak nut job Kirk Cameron from Growing Pains who ambushes people on the streets of LA to deliver to them the wonderful news about the lake of fire they’re gonna spend eternity in? Because seriously, I doubt the possibility of the existence of two outrageously criminally insane individuals called Cameron.
    Please say you are.

  23. Not even $200 oil can bring down America. The Arab World can pray for it all they want but it ain’t gonna happen. The American work ethic may not necessarily be Japanese but it sure as hell isnt Egyptian either ;)

  24. Oh and one more thing, Craig the whole hardon you have for Turette is unbecoming and getting a little old dude. Give it up!

  25. “But, the reality is that those dumb yanks have shouldered the weight of Freedom’s preservation for well over 3 quarters of a century.” –> Ah yes! The so called ‘white man’s burden’ to educate the poor ignorant savages about how they can really be free. How romantic. It’s like Disney’s Pocahontas but in real life!

    I’m sick and tired of hearing about America’s spread of Democracy. We need a new word to define this concept which the U.S govt. has made irrevocably repulsive and dirty.
    Maybe we can switch the words ‘garbage’ and ‘democracy’ around in the dictionary to solve the problem. At the very least then, the U.S would *not* be lying when it says its spreading ‘garbage’.

    I will agree with you though that democracy, sorry i mean garbage, is not a Paradise. I mean for one thing, the stink is unbearable.

  26. Given that we now have a Marxist in the White House, look out world.

  27. Melissa in NorCal says:

    I sat in a Cattleman’s steak house the other night with my in-laws from Austria and saw all the middle class families around me enjoying steak and lobster and realized that the media is a great deal more negative than the general public. I think Americans are very optimistic and doing better than it is reported. Seeing all the cars on the road and people at the mini-golf course on the weekend, it was hard to compare this time to the time when whole families had to go west through the dust bowl looking for work. It just isn’t a depression. It just isn’t. We still have it pretty good, if not, the best. Chin up America.

  28. I’m sick and tired of hearing about America’s spread of Democracy. We need a new word to define this concept which the U.S govt. has made irrevocably repulsive and dirty.

    Lol. Well, we like it fine. If you like what you have better, then more power to you :)

  29. Oh and one more thing, Craig the whole hardon you have for Turette is unbecoming and getting a little old dude. Give it up!

    Never! And I don’t really care if its unbecoming :p

    Too many people turn the other way when somebody like Twosret pulls her malicious shit, that’s why she continues to do it. I’m not gonna be one of those people who acts like her behavior is OK.

  30. “I’m sick and tired of hearing about America’s spread of Democracy. We need a new word to define this concept which the U.S govt. has made irrevocably repulsive and dirty.”

    If America doesn’t do it who will? The French, the Arabs or maybe China can step up for a change. America is damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t.

  31. @Craig:
    Americans may be corrupt. But, compared to who!? lol. I honestly can’t think of a society that has less systematic corruption than ours, and I’ve been around.
    ..or my claim that American society is the least corrupt?

    I have to respond to that. :) According to Transparency International, America is about the 18th least corrupt country. While certainly leaps and bounds better than any place in the middle east, America is a filth ridden hole of corruption compared to Denmark where I live now. :) Some of the things you let fly back in Washington… wow, that would not be accepted here. Like tacking irrelevant pork for special interest onto important unrelated bills to make sure it passes.

    Sorry for the put-down. America’s — compared to most of the world — is doing pretty well. But don’t be yellin’ “We’re number one!” when you’re not even on the podium.

    Incidentally: We’re (actually!) number one!

  32. But aside from my little jab: I wish for the speedy recovery of America’s good health. I think both the U.S. and Europe will come out on the other side of this stronger and healthier — there was a lot of unhealthy shit going on financially. It’s time to get the old virtues back into business.

  33. One last thing about corruption: It struck me, looking at the map and the list at
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index, that there seems to be a strong trend:

    The more liberal the society, the less corrupt it is; the more authoritarian the society, the more corruption seems to flourish. (With Singapore as an outlier). I wonder why?

  34. Ohio, you raise an interesting point. Can everyone be losing money with no one gaining any? I’m not an economist, but let me try to answer this. I think some have gained. These are the people who bet correctly on which way investments were going. We don’t hear much about them because the media is focused on those who are losing.

    But more important, I think, is that those losing never really had the money in the first place. This should be pretty obvious regarding Madoff’s victims. They thought they had money, but they didn’t. The quarterly statements they received about their money didn’t reflect the actual facts about their money.

    By the way, the stock market crash of 1929 led to the same situation: lots of people losing money with very few winners.

  35. I wouldn’t be too quick to think America and the world will recover – Obama is hell-bent on taking America down a road of no return, with a smirk on his face.

  36. Yeah, yeah Joanne. Sure thing. He’s rapidly changing America into a socialist fascist regime. By increasing taxes marginally on the top 5% and decreasing them slightly for the bottom 95%. Just like Stalin.

  37. “By increasing taxes marginally on the top 5% and decreasing them slightly for the bottom 95%.”

    More of his campaign rhetoric that won’t stand up to the test of time. Sales tax revenues have fallen 6% nationwide. You can’t spend more with less tax revenue and not raise taxes on everyone. The DOW and Wall Street really love Obama’s plans, don’t they? LOL He’s an empty suit and he’s proving it every time he opens his mouth. We’ll recover, I’m just afraid it won’t be until January 21st, 2012.

  38. @tedders: You mean in his second term?

    I think the U.S. will be back on track sooner — my guess is we’ll reach the bottom in around a year and a turnaround within the next two, returning to a substantially healthy economy within the next five years.

  39. “Obama is hell-bent on taking America down a road of no return, with a smirk on his face”

    I hate that smirk….total used car salesman like.

  40. “@tedders: You mean in his second term?”

    He’s a one term wonder.

  41. “He’s a one term wonder.”

    Maybe, but most likely not. Even George W. Bush, pretty universally thought to be the worst president in about a century, made his second term. Obama has to be completely abysmal — not just suck a little, but “worse than George Bush”-abysmal — to be a one term wonder.

  42. Obama is going to make Bush look like the best thing that ever happened!

    There’s no comparison whatsoever. Obama will be a one termer if he even makes through that most will be suprised.

    “Bush, pretty universally thought to be the worst president in about a century”

    You’ve been reading too many op-eds that were disguised as news, there’s a reason Kerry and Gore lost. Bush’s legacy is far from being what you claim it to be, Obama is going to make sure of that!

  43. EgyPeter says:

    Well said tedders.

  44. “I honestly can’t think of a society that has less systematic corruption than ours”

    Craig, you obviously haven’t been to any of the scandinavian countries… ;)

    http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2008

    We’re squeaky clean! :p

  45. Yes Adam,

    The website Transparency International ranks the US as the 20th least corrupt nation in the world, Israel is tied for 30th least corrupt. Iran is tied for 131st place. Worst possible score is 179 held by Somalia (big surprise!!LOL)

    http://www.transparency.org/

    http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/2007/cpi2007/cpi_2007_table

    Interesting graph on where corruption is the worst.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

    The more liberal the society, the less corrupt it is; the more authoritarian the society, the more corruption seems to flourish. Marx and Lenin missed that important fact it seems!!

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/World_Map_Index_of_perception_of_corruption.png

  46. James & Adam, you are comparing Denmark to the US? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to compare Denmark to American cities with comparable populations? :P

    OK OK sorry! You’re glorified city council’s do a great job! I’m sure that if we did compare the government of Denmark to the government of San Francisco, you guys would STILL win! You totally rock by whatever measure is being used by that study. I’d rate Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia pretty low when it comes to governmental double standards and lack of institutional integrity, though. Making mis-statements of fact to the media, for instance. Doesn’t that count as “corruption”? We crucify politicians who get caught lying to the media, in the US. In Northern Europe, it almost seems like it is encouraged. I don’t get it.

    PS-Didn’t expect this thread to still be up at the top after being gone a week! SM must be busy, eh?

  47. I think the U.S. will be back on track sooner — my guess is we’ll reach the bottom in around a year and a turnaround within the next two, returning to a substantially healthy economy within the next five years.

    James, I would have agreed with you 2 months ago. But I find the proposed growth in the US federal government quite alarming. That isn’t easily paid for, and it isn’t easily undone. Government entities tend to resist their own dismantling pretty energetically. I think the US is in for a long hard ride. As unpopular as socialism is in the US, I’m really surprised its been able to sneak in through the back door this way.

  48. ” think the U.S. will be back on track sooner — my guess is we’ll reach the bottom in around a year and a turnaround within the next two, returning to a substantially healthy economy within the next five years.”

    The US and world economy will rebound on January 20th 2112. For the next 45 months we’re apparently screwed.

  49. Craig:

    Right, mr. überpatriot – because some statistic doesn’t put your country in the best and most favourable light (as if 18th place is actually bad) it’s automatically invalid?

    That’s complete bullsh*t, and (hopefully!) you know it.

    Any country, regardless of it’s size, has the same problems to deal with – numbers are not really an issue. If anything, larger numbers make things a heck of a lot easier. Which country do you think has the best chance of maintaining a proper treatment-program for, say, progeria?

    Corruption is a consequence of tradition and system. The scandinavian countries happen to have a long tradition of non-corruption as well as systems that tend to counteract corruption (not much polarization in salaries, equal treatment and opportunities for everyone, and strict, if somewhat beaurocratic, procedures). Population or country-size has nothing to do with this.

    As for your comment on lying politicians, I don’t recognize your view. US politicians have a much grander tradition of lying through their teeth than their scandinavian counterparts in my experience – remember, we invented the term “ombudsmand”…! Give me a statistic that supports your theory, please…

  50. Interesting (british) article on the sybject, by the way… :)

    http://www.newstatesman.com/200505090041

    Pretty universal, I would wager…

  51. Adam: You’re wrong. There is no aspect in which the USA is not number one in the world. It simply cannot be; someone must be cheating. Being in the top ten percent is not enough, because the US is *the best* at *everything*!

    And Barack Obama is a socialist.

  52. James,
    Stop making fun of Craig and the other tools, although I doubt they’d realize that you are. And yeah, Barack Obama is a Marxist.

  53. Barack Obama is a hard leaning leftist socialist. A one term wonder in the making. Even hardcore Obamabots are realizing they’ve been dupped:

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

    The strongly approve and strongly disapprove lines are at an intersection! Not even 100 days into his term!

    He’s so “blown it” that he’s actually redefining the term.
    He will become a verb.
    Future politicians will be accused of “pulling an Obama”.

    It’s going to be an interesting 45 months!

  54. http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=78809591650&h=Z7Pne&u=BCJXl&ref=nf

    I wasn’t aware that “distinguished” was a derogatory word? ;)

    5:00-5:10

  55. Adam,

    Right, mr. überpatriot – because some statistic doesn’t put your country in the best and most favourable light (as if 18th place is actually bad) it’s automatically invalid?

    Didn’t say it wasn’t “valid”, nor did I say the US was “number one” at anything, other than power :)

    Any country, regardless of it’s size, has the same problems to deal with…

    Now THAT is an example of complete bullshit, Adam :P

    Example: How many people look to Denmark to be the world’s policeman?

    Another example: How many people try to influence the way Denmark votes in the UN?

    I could make a list that was infinite, illustrating the differences between a large country and a small one.

    …numbers are not really an issue. If anything, larger numbers make things a heck of a lot easier. Which country do you think has the best chance of maintaining a proper treatment-program for, say, progeria?

    I have no idea what you are trying to say, there. It seems to me that a country with a very small and very wealthy (comparatively) population can afford to provide better medical care to 100% of its citizens than a country with a very large and economically diverse population.

    Corruption is a consequence of tradition and system. The scandinavian countries happen to have a long tradition of non-corruption as well as systems that tend to counteract corruption (not much polarization in salaries, equal treatment and opportunities for everyone, and strict, if somewhat beaurocratic, procedures). Population or country-size has nothing to do with this.

    In the US. Some parts of the US are notorious for corruption and others are the opposite. We have the same “systems” in place in both. Not buying this claim, Adam.

    As for your comment on lying politicians, I don’t recognize your view. US politicians have a much grander tradition of lying through their teeth than their scandinavian counterparts in my experience…

    Examples? I mean, of US politicians lying to the media and getting caught, without being crucified for it? You have any?

    …remember, we invented the term “ombudsmand”…! Give me a statistic that supports your theory, please…

    Statistics? I don’t need no stinking statistics! When a Scandinavian head of a UN program makes intentionally dishonest claims to the international media, is that or is that not corruption?

  56. James, Stop making fun of Craig and the other tools…

    Mohamad, my understanding is that James is an American expat living in Denmark. That makes him a somewhat unusual personality. Not that it is bad or anything, it just means he’s not a typical American and he’s probably got at least a mild anti-US bias. After all, most Americans don’t voluntarily decide to live in another country. That’s just a fact. Doesn’t mean he’s wrong, it just means he has a different “tilt” than the norm. I would have agreed with him about what he said about the US economy rebounding a couple months ago. But now? Dunno. The projected amount of growth in the US Federal government is going to COST. A LOT. And if Obama wakes up one day and says “Holy shit! I fucked up BAD, where’s my undo button!?” then he’s going to find out it is a hell of a lot easier to create government bureaucracy than it is to eliminate it. I think Americans are going to be stuck with this new super-sized US government long after Obama is gone, and that worries me a lot. You, Mohamed, may think you’ll enjoy a socialistic America but I bet you won’t. I bet 100% of Americans are going to be feeling like they’ve got government boots on their neck in the future.

  57. Craig:

    “Didn’t say it wasn’t “valid””

    It may not have been your intention, but that’s sure the message you got across … “you are comparing Denmark to the US?”

    “How many people look to Denmark to be the world’s policeman?”

    None. Same goes for the US or any other country, by the way. NATO, in the abscence of a viable UN peacekeeping force, would be a much better alternative…

    “How many people try to influence the way Denmark votes in the UN?”

    How is this a problem for the US…? I’d love for Denmark to have a weightier vote in the UN, not to mention a veto – the world would probably look a lot better than it does today! ;)

    “a country with a very small and very wealthy (comparatively) population can afford to provide better medical care to 100% of its citizens than a country with a very large and economically diverse population.”

    Please explain to me why Denmark has an overall wealthy population while the US has an economically diverse one, and tell me how this supports your argument?

    “In the US. Some parts of the US are notorious for corruption and others are the opposite. We have the same “systems” in place in both. Not buying this claim, Adam.”

    That’s odd, ’cause that exactly illustrates my point. The US, because of it’s system, it’s political history, and it’s tradition, has a non-homogenous population, which invariably results in higher levels of corruption in certain sections than found in more homogenous societies like, say, those in Scandinavia, bringing us back to my point in 45 (which was intended as a friendly nudge rather than a slap in the face – notice the winking smiley?).

    “Examples?”

    Likewise… :) Anyway, “I did not have sexual relations…” immediately springs to mind, although I’ll admit it’s a rather shitty example. :D
    “I’m not a crook” is another.
    “Read my lips: No more taxes” is yet another…

    But in the end, I agree that the US is largely a non-corrupted society. Your claim was slightly scewed, and I decided to point this out, tease you a bit, and pat myself on the back, tongue-in-cheek, at the same time. An argument such as this was not my intention…

  58. It may not have been your intention, but that’s sure the message you got across … “you are comparing Denmark to the US?”

    I wasn’t suggesting the study was invalid. I was suggesting a comparison between a tiny country like Denmark and a quite large country like the United States is inappropriate. I was also suggesting that the study may have a very limited scope when it comes to what it defines as “corruption”, because I don’t consider any European government to have much integrity and being completely untrustworthy and often blatantly dishonest in the pursuit of a political agenda isn’t OK just because people aren’t taking money, eh?

    And then there are countries like France, where politicians actually DO take money, and also have the same problems with lack of public integrity and accountability. But I’d rather not get into the case of France, since we weren’t discussing it lol.

    None. Same goes for the US or any other country, by the way. NATO, in the abscence of a viable UN peacekeeping force, would be a much better alternative…

    I disagree on both counts. Europe, first and foremost, is completely dependent on the US to play the role of world police. And, you know it. Hence your reference to “NATO” – as if NATO amounts to anything, without the US.

    On the second count: NATO is a regional alliance with a very specific agenda. I would think that it would be more difficult for a (non-European and non-NATO member) nation to trust NATO with all of its internal conflicts and divergent national agendas than it would be to trust the intentions of a single state actor. Do you disagree? Really? Or are you just pimping NATO because it is the current European “in” thing to do? Would you still feel the same way, if NATO wasn’t a European organization?

    In any case, I hope Europe gets off the NATO crack and also gets out form Uncle Sam’s shadow because the US doesn’t seem as committed to Europe as it has been in past years.

    How is this a problem for the US…?

    How is being pressured by the entire free world to push one thing or another in the UN a problem for the US? Are you kidding, or do you really want me to try to answer that?

    I’d love for Denmark to have a weightier vote in the UN, not to mention a veto…

    Every country has the same voting power. The reason people push so hard for the US to side with them in the UN is because the US can influence the votes of a lot of other countries. And also because the US has a reputation for actually putting the money and the manpower behind UN projects that it supports so that they may actually succeed. Once in a while. If you want that for Denmark, there isn’t anything stopping you from attempting to acquire that kind of influence :)

    As for the veto, you can have France’s if you want! Fine by me. You can tell Sarkozy I said so.

    Or better yet, France’s veto can go to India or an African confederation if one is ever established. Britain’s veto can go to the EU. Europe doesn’t rate 2 out of 5 vetoes anyway. Not by any measure.

    – the world would probably look a lot better than it does today! ;)

    Yes! It would be utopia! Just what we all always wanted!

    Please explain to me why Denmark has an overall wealthy population while the US has an economically diverse one, and tell me how this supports your argument?

    I’m not here to give courses on demographics, Adam :p

    That’s odd, ’cause that exactly illustrates my point. The US, because of it’s system, it’s political history, and it’s tradition, has a non-homogenous population, which invariably results in higher levels of corruption in certain sections than found in more homogenous societies like, say, those in Scandinavia, bringing us back to my point in 45 (which was intended as a friendly nudge rather than a slap in the face – notice the winking smiley?).

    We also have a different system of government. Our Federal government (that’s what all you foreigners consider the US government) has very little influence domestically. And our state governments – which DO have influence domestically – have virtually no role, internationally.

    Likewise… :) Anyway, “I did not have sexual relations…” immediately springs to mind, although I’ll admit it’s a rather shitty example. :D

    Eh… Clinton got IMPEACHED for that. Your example is actually a proof of my position, not of yours :p

    “I’m not a crook” is another.

    Nixon was about to be impeached but chose to resign his Presidency instead. Another proof of my position :p

    “Read my lips: No more taxes” is yet another…

    And that cost him the 1992 Presidential elections. I didn’t even vote for him, myself. And I did vote for him in 1988. Do you have any idea how often the US media played that clip in the runup to the ’92 elections? Yet another prrof of my position!

    But in the end, I agree that the US is largely a non-corrupted society. Your claim was slightly scewed, and I decided to point this out, tease you a bit, and pat myself on the back, tongue-in-cheek, at the same time. An argument such as this was not my intention…

    Well, I would agree that western countries in general are pretty “clean” politically, compared to the rest of the world. But that’s not really saying much, is it?

  59. “I wasn’t suggesting the study was invalid. I was suggesting a comparison between a tiny country like Denmark and a quite large country like the United States is inappropriate.”

    That’s pretty much the same thing – comparing the different countries is exactly what the study is doing… And it’s basically contradicting your gut-feeling. Oh well, for your comfort, the US is 4 positions above France… :D

    “…as if NATO amounts to anything, without the US”

    Never said it did, but at least, NATO takes consentual decisions, unlike when the US just storms ahead on it’s own to inevitable disaster. I maintain that no one else in the world wants the US to act as world policeman. Some of us do, however, very much appreciate the muscle that the US can deliver when we do agree to take joint action.

    “NATO is a regional alliance with a very specific agenda.”

    Agreed, but seeing as the only alternative is a UN force – and we all know how pathetic THAT bunch is – it’s the best I can come up with at present.

    “How is being pressured by the entire free world to push one thing or another in the UN a problem for the US? Are you kidding, or do you really want me to try to answer that?”

    Yes, I would. Having a whole world lobbying for your attention puts you in a great bargaining position, don’t you think?

    “Every country has the same voting power.”

    Uh, no.

    In fact, most countries, excluding an arbitrary group of 5 regulars, all with veto no less, have to contend with sitting outside the room while 10 temporary countries along with the 5 regulars, make up the security council. I’d say that gives quite a bit of an advantage to the US, Russia, China, France, and Britain…!!!

    …”the US has a reputation for actually putting the money…”

    The US owes more money to the UN than any other country in the world – money withheld in order to preassure the council members into following the lead of the US on various issues. Did I hear someone mention corruption…?

    “I’m not here to give courses on demographics, Adam”

    Then you should stop using them as arguments… ;)

    “We also have a different system of government. Our Federal government (that’s what all you foreigners consider the US government) has very little influence domestically. ”

    I realize that, but you guys having a system with built-in social lopsidedness only supports my argument.

    “…proof of my position”

    I’ll give you that – I misread your post, and didn’t focus on the “crucify” part… my bad.

    Still, I’d like for you to come up with a similar example of a scandinaviann politicians lying and NOT getting his ass handed to him by the media…

  60. Oh well, for your comfort, the US is 4 positions above France… :D

    WTF!? Now I know those results are cooked :P

    Gonna leave off on that study now, it’s not really important to me to argue which of the generally un-corrupt countries is cleanest, and the countries that have a major problem don’t give rat’s ass about studies.

    Never said it did, but at least, NATO takes consentual decisions, unlike when the US just storms ahead on it’s own to inevitable disaster.

    I have no idea what that means. Has NATO ever engaged in an operation without US approval? Not as far as I know. That being the case, your “consensual decisions” are just the ability of NATO members to opt-out of a US led operation if they so desire. And then when you do opt out, you talk about “inevitable disaster” and “unilateral action”, right? I don’t know if you’ve noticed, Adam, but the disaster seems to be developing in (NATO operation) Afghanistan, not in (unilateral-action) Iraq. So, watch where you start slinging those pejoratives!

    I maintain that no one else in the world wants the US to act as world policeman.

    Right. Except for everyone in the world who has a problem that they can’t handle without the US.

    Some of us do, however, very much appreciate the muscle that the US can deliver when we do agree to take joint action.

    Is this some kind of European code phrase or something? You sound like the US is your bitch. I can’t wait to hear some Indians or South Koreans talking about the US that way. Not even Canadians talk about the US like we come at their beck and call ;)

    Agreed, but seeing as the only alternative is a UN force – and we all know how pathetic THAT bunch is – it’s the best I can come up with at present.

    Which is why the US has to build new alliances and maintain existing ones, outside of Europe. NATO can only be relied on when Europe’s interests are at stake. And Europe is pretty “back burner” for the US these days.

    Yes, I would. Having a whole world lobbying for your attention puts you in a great bargaining position, don’t you think?

    I’d say that gives quite a bit of an advantage to the US, Russia, China, France, and Britain…!!!

    Well, somebody has to babysit all the petty dictators and tyrants at the UN. You would prefer simple majority rule? I tell you, I couldn’t be paid enough to voluntarily become a citizen of most the member-states of the UN, and you would have those governments ruling over the whole planet?

    The veto power is critical. But it should be wielded by the most powerful and/or influential countries. They are the only ones who can actually ENFORCE a veto, anyway… and even then, only so long as they agree to all play by the same rules which has worked well enough so far. That means that the UK and France should cede their vetoes.

    The US owes more money to the UN than any other country in the world – money withheld in order to preassure the council members into following the lead of the US on various issues.

    The US single handedly pays… what? … a third of the UN’s expenses? And you come here and whine about it? lol.

    Did I hear someone mention corruption…?

    I wonder how the UN rates on that study? :)

    Then you should stop using them as arguments… ;)

    I didn’t put forward an argument. I put forward a demographic fact. Which you asked me to explain. Why do you want me to explain things that could could look up for yourself?

    I realize that, but you guys having a system with built-in social lopsidedness only supports my argument.

    I’m glad you claim you understand what kind of government the US has, but I don’t understand your response at all. You put forward a fact that is not a fact and claim it supports an argument of some kind? Isn’t this the one that started with you claiming the US could provide better health care than Denmark, merely by virtue of being a much larger country, despite the fact that Denmark doesn’t have the same kinds of social problems the US has? And now you claim that we have some sort of “built in” social lopsidedness? What is that built-in social lopsidedness called? Capitalism? :o

    Still, I’d like for you to come up with a similar example of a scandinaviann politicians lying and NOT getting his ass handed to him by the media…

    Has a Scandinavian politician ever been on the international news moving his lips and NOT been lying, Adam? Or is telling lies OK as long as the agenda they serve is a politically correct one? Really, I’m not going to get into this with you again. I’ve confronted you before about lies European (and specifically Scandinavian) politicians have told to the press.

  61. Craig, what can I say… You have an extremely narrow-minded US-way of viewing the world. It would do you good to try and see things slightly differently, at least once in a while.

    The US doesn’t make NATO-decisions; NATO makes NATO decisions, in which the US has a say and takes a part. The US has by far the most muscles of the members – this goes for the UN as well – and all western countries greatly appreciate the force that any US contribution to joint operations represent; it has nothing to do with being someones’ bitch OR having absolute power.

    You seem to live in a black and white world, and that’s not healthy… Maybe you could try sitting down and considering WHY Europe doesn’t agree with every decision and action the US makes or takes, instead of simply labeling us as unreliable and selfish allies. Empathy is our friend. :)

    “Well, somebody has to babysit all the petty dictators and tyrants at the UN. You would prefer simple majority rule? I tell you, I couldn’t be paid enough to voluntarily become a citizen of most the member-states of the UN, and you would have those governments ruling over the whole planet?”

    Odd… I both strongly agree and vehemently disagree with your point here. Yes, I agree that simple majority rule would be the shits, and I too would not want to be a citizen of many countries in this world. Nevertheless, the UN is a tool for creating (or trying to create) some sort of mutual understanding between all people in the world. Many countries, however, don’t have a government that properly represents it’s population, but in lack of a better alternative, those are the ones we have to talk to, and hopefully, through persistent dialogue, we’ll get some positive changes implemented. As of today, the security council recognices 5 countries as being above all the rest: one superpower (with delusions of infallibility), one ex-superpower (with a VERY questionable democracy), two very-ex-superpowers with little world-wide clout, and the world’s greatest autocracy (and long-time invader of a neighbouring country). I think we could do better…!

    “But [the veto] should be wielded by the most powerful and/or influential countries.”

    I disagree – if a veto was invaluable (and I personally strongly oppose the idea of a veto in what should be a democratic entity!!!), the veto should be wielded by the most capable, rational, and reasonable countries. Might has never been equal to right, and it takes little military power to enforce a veto in a voluntary organisation…

    “The US single handedly pays… what? … a third of the UN’s expenses? And you come here and whine about it? lol.”

    Not even close – Germany, Japan, France and Russia combined pay roughly the same as the US. It’s a question of percentage per capita… And the US owed more than a years total budget as of 2007.

    “I wonder how the UN rates on that study? ”

    Not very high, I would guess. The UN is a cesspool! Unfortunately, we seem to be unable to come up with anything better. Or rather: Unfortunately, we seem to place to much importance on what is decided in the UN.

    “I put forward a demographic fact. Which you asked me to explain. ”

    Where? You introduced demographics which I argued were irrelevant for the discussion. You disagreed, but did not adress my argument.

    Yes, your system has built-in lopsidedness in that you do not attempt to guarantee equal treatment for ALL your citizens, but rather leave it to local governments to decide what level to strive for. This inherently leaves you with large social fluctuations across the country (aka a non-homogenous population) and, regarding this argument, an uneven level of corruption. The US certainly has the wealth to change this but seems to lack the will, be it out of respect for the system or some other reason… And yes – capitalism, for all it’s positive sides, has it’s faults too, at least if left completely to it’s own devices. The current crisis is ample proof of this.

    “Has a Scandinavian politician ever been on the international news moving his lips and NOT been lying, Adam?”

    Ridiculous claim – I asked for examples, Craig; not your personal and probably preconceived opinion. Please direct me towards the examples you claim to have made before – I don’t recall any, I’m afraid…

  62. Craig, what can I say… You have an extremely narrow-minded US-way of viewing the world. It would do you good to try and see things slightly differently, at least once in a while.

    This, from the guy who thinks the world looks to NATO, and who believes the US should never act without European approval? lol.

    The US doesn’t make NATO-decisions; NATO makes NATO decisions, in which the US has a say and takes a part.

    Oh, really? And when was the last time NATO did anything without the US?

    The US has by far the most muscles of the members…

    That’s only because “all its members” have decided not to spend any money on defense and instead rely on the US to be their world police aka Europe’s bitch. *shrug*

    – this goes for the UN as well…

    No, it doesn’t go for the UN, because most of the membership of the UN hasn’t been standing in America’s shadow the last 50+ years. But to somebody as Euro-centric as you are, you only pay attention to Europe’s agenda and Europe’s “contributions”, right?

    – and all western countries greatly appreciate the force that any US contribution to joint operations represent;

    There you go again. The US has friends and allies that are NOT western countries, you know. If its time for a reality check, I’m not so sure I’d even consider the US itself to be a western country any more. It damn sure doesn’t look like one, here in Los Angeles :P

    You seem to live in a black and white world, and that’s not healthy… Maybe you could try sitting down and considering WHY Europe…

    If you haven’t noticed yet, I don’t give a fuck about Europe, Adam. I’m wondering why so many Europeans seem to think the US cares a whole hell of a lot about them and their opinions? I’ve been trying to work that out for years now. You don’t find people in other regions so obsessed with the US, unless its a case where they are obsessed by hate.

    …doesn’t agree with every decision and action the US makes or takes, instead of simply labeling us as unreliable and selfish allies. Empathy is our friend. :)

    I’m not feeling the love over here :P

    Odd… I both strongly agree and vehemently disagree with your point here. Yes, I agree that simple majority rule would be the shits, and I too would not want to be a citizen of many countries in this world. Nevertheless, the UN is a tool for creating (or trying to create) some sort of mutual understanding between all people in the world.

    No, Adam, it isn’t. Again, that is the touchy-feely European view of the UN’s role. The UN was created to try to avert wars or if that was impossible then to at least reduce the human suffering associated with wars.

    A secondary role has been promotion of human rights. But the UN has completely failed on that count. I’m not aware of any evidence that humanism is in a more advanced state today than it was prior to World War II. Are you? I’m guessing that the only improvements in the human condition in the last century, for most of the world’s population, have been technological.

    Many countries, however, don’t have a government that properly represents it’s population, but in lack of a better alternative, those are the ones we have to talk to, and hopefully, through persistent dialogue, we’ll get some positive changes implemented. As of today, the security council recognices 5 countries as being above all the rest: one superpower (with delusions of infallibility), one ex-superpower (with a VERY questionable democracy), two very-ex-superpowers with little world-wide clout, and the world’s greatest autocracy (and long-time invader of a neighbouring country). I think we could do better…!

    Well, there you are again with your “The UN is supposed to promote democracy” thing. The UN is supposed to avert wars. Full stop.

    I disagree – if a veto was invaluable (and I personally strongly oppose the idea of a veto in what should be a democratic entity!!!)

    It isn’t a “democratic entity”. It isn’t a governmental body, at all. It’s a DIPLOMATIC organization, Adam.

    Not that I’m trying to piss on your utopia or anything, heaven forbid! You go on thinking of it as the world government if that makes you happy :)

    …the veto should be wielded by the most capable, rational, and reasonable countries. Might has never been equal to right, and it takes little military power to enforce a veto in a voluntary organisation…

    I don’t understand that language.

    Not even close – Germany, Japan, France and Russia combined pay roughly the same as the US.

    How, then, am I “not even close?

    It’s a question of percentage per capita…

    Per capita? You sure about that? lol. Does per capita mean something else in Denmark? I thought it was a latin term, no?

    So to hear you tell it, India and China pay most of the UN’s bills, then?

    And the US owed more than a years total budget as of 2007.

    Who cares? Pay your own bills.

    Not very high, I would guess. The UN is a cesspool! Unfortunately, we seem to be unable to come up with anything better.

    Bullshit. The UN used to BE better. The UN is what teh member states turned it into. No more, and no less.

    Or rather: Unfortunately, we seem to place to much importance on what is decided in the UN.

    Who does? Not Americans. There hasn’t been any point in the last 20 years at which you could have sampled US public opinion and found that Americans were in favor of the UN. If we put it to popular vote, the US would withdraw its UN membership. I’ve never in my whole life (and I’m not young) heard an American say anything good about the UN. And do you know who Americans blame for the failure of the UN? We’re looking at you, Adam. We expected better from Western nations.

  63. “This, from the guy who thinks the world looks to NATO, and who believes the US should never act without European approval? lol.”

    Black and white again, huh? Doesn’t it get rather repetitive at some point?

    “And when was the last time NATO did anything without the US?”

    Why would NATO do something without it’s strongest member? Nonsensical comment…

    “…and instead rely on the US to be their world police aka Europe’s bitch. *shrug”

    Black and white again… Sigh.

    “The US has friends and allies that are NOT western countries, you know”

    Name them. Name “friends” and not just “yay-sayers” eating crumbs out of your hand…

    “I’m not feeling the love over here”

    You’re doing your best to overlook it, that’s for sure…

    “No, Adam, it isn’t.”

    Yes it is, and your next comment confirms it.

    “I’m not aware of any evidence that humanism is in a more advanced state today than it was prior to World War II.”

    Then you’re not looking hard enough. I’m sure your coloured citizens will agree with me…

    “The UN is supposed to avert wars. Full stop.”

    I disagree. Full stop.

    ” It’s a DIPLOMATIC organization, Adam.”

    And a democratic one at that, Craig. Remember your comment about votes earlier…?

    “I don’t understand that language.”

    Unfortunately, I’m not surprised…

    “How, then, am I “not even close?”

    4 countries = the US. Great Britain, India, Brazil, China, South Korea, and ALL THE REST OF THE WORLD’S NATIONS are still left = not even close to 1/3 of the total UN expenses…

    “You sure about that?#

    Yes. A countries contribution is determined by it’s income per capita, meaning that the average american pays more than the average nigerian. Pretty simple, really…

    “Pay your own bills”

    We have . Why don’t you?

    “Bullshit. The UN used to BE better. The UN is what teh member states turned it into. No more, and no less.”

    Funny. How does this make my comment bullshit? In any case, I agree of course…

    “We’re looking at you, Adam.”

    When you should be looking at yourselves… Let’s face it – YOU have a permanent seat AND a veto. “We” have a seat once in a blue moon and no handbrake we can pull, when the “big ones” screw up for the umpteenth time…

    This bickering is getting tedious and rather lame. As mentioned earlier, I saw you put the US on a pedestal (as is your habit), and decided to show you a glimpse of reality with a tongue-in-cheek remark. This was (sadly predictably) recieved badly, and no amount of argumentation is gonna make you view things differently it seems.

    Time to call it quits.

  64. Black and white again, huh? Doesn’t it get rather repetitive at some point?

    You know, Adam, sometimes things actually are black and white. For instance, if somebody at work is treating you like a dog and doing all they can to get you fired is there any point to trying to find shades of gray in that situation? Maybe you’d feel better if you were able to convince yourself that you deserved to be treated like shit? Is that the whole “empathy” thing you were talking about? :)

    Why would NATO do something without it’s strongest member? Nonsensical comment…

    What is nonsensical is for you to suggest it is normal in an alliance for all of the members to be totally reliant on ONE member for protection. That’s not an alliance, it is a patron-client relationship like the USSR had set up in the Warsaw Pact. And yet, you suggest that the patron should be required to obtain the consent of the client before taking any action. OK. Yeah. Right. Whatever. The bottom line is that the US cannot afford to keep sponsoring NATO or to keep protecting Europe either, so I hope for everyone’s sake there is a “plan B” in place in the event it is needed at some point in the future, because if European history is anything to go by, it WILL be needed.

    Name them. Name “friends” and not just “yay-sayers” eating crumbs out of your hand…

    Well, based on your wording up there I assume it would be pointless. So I’ll just leave you with you “black and white” belief that America’s only friend is Europe :p

    Then you’re not looking hard enough. I’m sure your coloured citizens will agree with me…

    Well, for one thing, our “coloured” citizens outnumber un-coloured citizens. For another thing, we don’t call people “colored” here in the US any more. That is considered a racist term. Just an FYI. And lastly, the UN had nothing to do with the US civil rights movement. I lied just now, that wasn’t last. Last is the fact that Americans already had it pretty good when it comes to human rights long before the UN was even founded, and – as you must have known – my comment was addressing the living situation of the other 6 billion people on the planet. Since this is an Egyptian blog, then tell me Adam – do Egyptians have more or less when it comes to human rights today than they did in 1940?

    Craig: “The UN is supposed to avert wars. Full stop.”

    Adam: I disagree. Full stop.

    It doesn’t matter if you “agree” with the UN’s founding charter or not, Adam. It is what it is :)

    http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.shtml

    The Purposes of the United Nations are:

    1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

    2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

    3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

    4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

    I say again: Full stop. The UN is not what you claim it to be.

    And a democratic one at that, Craig. Remember your comment about votes earlier…?

    Adam, democracy is a form of government. The UN is not a government.

    Is this difficult for you to get your head around? Maybe you would be well served by attempting to add a little black & white to your world view. You may find you see things a bit more clearly, even if they may not seem as warm and fuzzy that way.

    Time to call it quits.

    That’s what I decided some time ago when I couldn’t get you to admit to European double standards in regards to both Israel and the United States, Adam. I don’t know why I bother with you. Bored, i guess.

    And since from here you veer off into snide and snarky I’ll leave you to try to figure out why the facts are (again) not on your side, even though you’ve believed for your whole life that they are.

  65. I’m still calling it quits, and will leave you with your sad view on the world and the role of the US in it.

    I will, however, just point one final thing out, in regards to your UN quote…

    Of the 4 purposes of the UN you mention, the first supports your argument and the rest support mine. Food for thought…?

  66. Let me rephrase that…

    Of the four purposes of the UN you quote, you choose only to recognize the first, whilst I recognize all four. Food for thought…?

  67. I’m still calling it quits, and will leave you with your sad view on the world and the role of the US in it.

    Calling it quits, but not without a parting shot, eh? That’s called “passive aggressive” in my sad black & white world view! First you publicly give yourself permission to not respond any further, and then you get in a parting shot or two so that you can be sure you have the last word. I agree it would be a happier world if people were oblivious to all the shitty things everyone else is doing. Like, for instance, the time I couldn’t get you to admit how heinous it was for British nationals to violate the Vienna Conventions by attacking the US embassy in Scotland. The Brits, our best and most wonderful European allies… attacking our diplomatic missions. It’s all just fun and games, right Adam? Wouldn’t want to acknowledge anything that upset your little utopian European vision of the new world order.

    Of the four purposes of the UN you quote, you choose only to recognize the first, whilst I recognize all four. Food for thought…?

    You already demonstrated your inability to read treaty text without willfully misinterpreting it, during previous discussions, Adam. I stated that the primary purpose of the UN is to avert war, and that the UN took on a secondary mission of promoting humanitarian values. All 4 of the founding principals of the UN support what I said. All 4.

    None of them support your assertions that the UN is some sort of world government that exists to promote democracy. The word democracy is not even used, and the part of about promoting autonomy and self-rule is in regards to the nature of colonialism and imperialism because they constitute breaches of the peace . As you must have understood, though you chose to re-interpret it to support your world view, as you always do.

    By the way, the humanitarian aspects of the UN mission were added almost entirely due to the efforts of Eleanor Roosevelt. No thanks are due to the Euro-weenies who hijacked the agenda.

  68. Adam B. says:

    I’m not arguing – I’m trying to help you improve your reading- and memoryskills… This is an exact quote:

    “The UN is supposed to avert wars. Full stop.”

    Nothing about any primary (which it isn’t – 1 out of 4 doesn’t make it primary) purpose – as usual you elaborate and expand your previous comments AFTER having been corrected…

  69. You’re one to talk about reading and memory skills, Adam. This is my original statement about the role of the UN, in comment #63:

    No, Adam, it isn’t. Again, that is the touchy-feely European view of the UN’s role. The UN was created to try to avert wars or if that was impossible then to at least reduce the human suffering associated with wars.

    A secondary role has been promotion of human rights.

    You quoted out of context, from 3 paragraphs further down. Cheap.

  70. Nothing about any primary (which it isn’t – 1 out of 4 doesn’t make it primary) purpose

    Of course it is the primary goal, Adam. That’s why they listed it first. And #2, #3 and #4 are all intended as supporting #1. If there wasn’t a hierarchical relationship between the listed objectives, they wouldn’t have been assigned numbers, would they? This is a common sense reading of a simple document, Adam. You really have to jump through some hoops to try to even pretend that it says what you wish it said. And even then, I doubt you’ve even managed to convince yourself, have you? :p

  71. Adam B. says:

    Craig, please rerad your quote again. Points 2-4 makes no mention of and are not neccesarily connected to war, and rightly so. You focus exclusively on war or conditions associated with war, hence me quoting within context… simple, really.

    “Of course it is the primary goal, Adam.”

    No. that’s your personal opinion.

  72. Adam B. says:

    To be fair, the Security Council focuses exclusively on maintaining peace and security. If you are reffering directly to this branch of the UN, you are correct. In this context, however, quoting the basic tenants of the UN as a whole is a mistake and makes it exceedingly hard to know what you’re actually talking about…

  73. Craig, please rerad your quote again. Points 2-4 makes no mention of and are not neccesarily connected to war, and rightly so. You focus exclusively on war or conditions associated with war, hence me quoting within context… simple, really.

    Adam, you somehow missed this AGAIN, even after I pointed out to you that you missed it the first time?

    A secondary role has been promotion of human rights.

    I said that in the very first statement I made about the role of the UN, Adam. You can’t even correctly read the comments you reply to, so i guess it is no wonder that you can’t read the UN charter and understand what it means, eh? :P

    To be fair, the Security Council focuses exclusively on maintaining peace and security. If you are reffering directly to this branch of the UN, you are correct. In this context, however, quoting the basic tenants of the UN as a whole is a mistake and makes it exceedingly hard to know what you’re actually talking about…

    You are willfully misinterpreting treaty text. Again. Same as you did when we had the argument about the Geneva, Hague and Vienna conventions. I knew that you would. I even predicted that you would. You didn’t let me down :D

    Is it any wonder that the UN fails, when Europeans don’t even understand what the UN as an organization is intended to do? Or what or of organization it is? *shrug*

  74. we sell cheap ugg boots!

  75. ugg boots, uggs. Only the genuine ugg Australia brand are actually uggs.

  76. cheap aion gold here for you

  77. I love it.

  78. Do you know Hero gold? If you play the online game, you will know Hero online gold is the game gold.