19 Jun 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonI hear the average temperature in hell may be decreasing. In fact, I hear that perhaps they may go to the other temperature extreme just for kicks. Really, both temperature extremes feel about the same.
it would be a cold day in hell before I paid a single red cent to the u.n.
19 Jun 09
Originally posted by bill718It may never happen, but do you support such a proposal. I would think that all liberals who favor universal health care in the states must also favor this plan. If not, why not? What say you?
Not a bad theory, but with too many countries trying to manage this system, I doubt it will ever happen.😏
19 Jun 09
Originally posted by TeinosukeWhat do you people consider a large standing Army? Its quite small now by comparison. It is not the largest in the world. I dont read any posters calling for China to down size or N.Korea.
The main reason that the policy of having a large standing army has been discredited is that wars no longer involve major clashes on the battlefield between large numbers of troops. Modern wars between nations are technology-centred, not manpower-centred; they are more likely to involve intensive aerial bombing than intensive combat on the ground between a ...[text shortened]... s. Lebanon and Yugoslavia look more like the future to me than anything resembling World War II.
Who do I imagine would attack us? I am sure there are some that would try if they they thought they had a chance. Do you think if we had a Army the size of Canadas or Mexicos ,Russia would not make a move? China?
19 Jun 09
5 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt beats me, (cough), oil for food, (cough).
This may be a bit of a sidetrack, but as there have been a gazillion health care topics anyway; why do so many Americans have contempt for the UN?
I would gather that the biggest issue would be taxation without representation and was the issue that started the American Revolution. However, that is kind of how I feel about where the the US is now anyway, so why not the more the merrier?
Of course, the issue with any form of government is the issue of corruption and what is set in place to thwart it. The American government has the three branches of government with its checks and balances, what does the UN have or do they just expect them to act better than any other governmental body that has ever existed just because they are all that and a bag of chips?
19 Jun 09
Originally posted by whodey"American government" and "checks and balances" in the same sentence! That made me smile.
It beats me, (cough), oil for food, (cough).
I would gather that the biggest issue would be taxation without representation and was the issue that started the American Revolution. However, that is kind of how I feel about where the the US is now anyway, so why not the more the merrier?
Of course, the issue with any form of government is the issue of co ...[text shortened]... other governmental body that has ever existed just because they are all that and a bag of chips?
19 Jun 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonI can't see China invading any Western country. They're too busy selling us their products. Russia is likely to stick to attacking small local antagonists like Georgia, which it can do with impunity. And they also want to export their oil.
What do you people consider a large standing Army? Its quite small now by comparison. It is not the largest in the world. I dont read any posters calling for China to down size or N.Korea.
Who do I imagine would attack us? I am sure there are some that would try if they they thought they had a chance. Do you think if we had a Army the size of Canadas or Mexicos ,Russia would not make a move? China?
Even if it had a smaller army, the US would still be a technological superpower, armed with nuclear and other advanced weapons. No country is going to risk a direct attack on the US.
19 Jun 09
Originally posted by Teinosukeso your say just cut down troop strength in the Army? Keep the nukes,Navy and Airforce? Or,cut all them back too? If so by how much?
I can't see China invading any Western country. They're too busy selling us their products. Russia is likely to stick to attacking small local antagonists like Georgia, which it can do with impunity. And they also want to export their oil.
Even if it had a smaller army, the US would still be a technological superpower, armed with nuclear and other advanced weapons. No country is going to risk a direct attack on the US.
19 Jun 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI wrote a whole post ripping the UN and what it's done over the years. But, you know what? It's not worth arguing about. I'm deleting it.
This may be a bit of a sidetrack, but as there have been a gazillion health care topics anyway; why do so many Americans have contempt for the UN?
Suffice it to say, the UN is fine for a place of dialogue and exchange of ideas. It may even be useful for organizing humanitarian missions and the like (when the organizers are not busy taking bribes and kickbacks). But, regarding security and as an agent to enforce anything, the UN is and will always be irrelevant.
19 Jun 09
It seems to me that Universal Health Care COULD work as long as the ambition of those who wish to enter the hard sciences is not diminished. If "The Government' (ie--the New Boss) ,made sure that these exceptional people were substantially rewarded for their time, study, and natural abilitiies, I don't see much diff in the system we have now.
20 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76So what would make the relavent? Would not a global tax going directly to the UN help make them relavent? I think that was their goal and still probably is. Just think how irrelavent those in Washington would be if they were not taking half our income.
I wrote a whole post ripping the UN and what it's done over the years. But, you know what? It's not worth arguing about. I'm deleting it.
Suffice it to say, the UN is fine for a place of dialogue and exchange of ideas. It may even be useful for organizing humanitarian missions and the like (when the organizers are not busy taking bribes and kickbacks). But, ...[text shortened]... arding security and as an agent to enforce anything, the UN is and will always be irrelevant.
I can dream can't I?
20 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76Well if the member states cannot agree on how to organize security or enforce anything then maybe that is the wrong channel for the motives of individual nations. The question is whether or not you think you need consensus before invading another country. Clearly the US doesn't - and thus shouldn't bother going through the UN when it wants to do so. But that is not a failure of the UN.
Suffice it to say, the UN is fine for a place of dialogue and exchange of ideas. It may even be useful for organizing humanitarian missions and the like (when the organizers are not busy taking bribes and kickbacks). But, regarding security and as an agent to enforce anything, the UN is and will always be irrelevant.
20 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76The UN has 15 or so peacekeeping missions at the moment. Are you saying they are all useless?
I wrote a whole post ripping the UN and what it's done over the years. But, you know what? It's not worth arguing about. I'm deleting it.
Suffice it to say, the UN is fine for a place of dialogue and exchange of ideas. It may even be useful for organizing humanitarian missions and the like (when the organizers are not busy taking bribes and kickbacks). But, ...[text shortened]... arding security and as an agent to enforce anything, the UN is and will always be irrelevant.
20 Jun 09
Originally posted by TeinosukeAnd all of that technology needs people to run, operate, coordinate and maintain it, plus the infrastructure of the miltiary itself - which includes many of the things that run a society. Food service, human resources and other administrative needs, supply, fully staffed medical facilities, etc. etc. etc. Just one aircraft has dozenings of personnel supporting it in some way, shape or form.
The main reason that the policy of having a large standing army has been discredited is that wars no longer involve major clashes on the battlefield between large numbers of troops. Modern wars between nations are technology-centred, not manpower-centred; they are more likely to involve intensive aerial bombing than intensive combat on the ground between a ...[text shortened]... s. Lebanon and Yugoslavia look more like the future to me than anything resembling World War II.
There are probably more than ten MOS's (jobs) in field artilary alone. How many sailors and Marines are needed to staff just one battle ship?
Plus the major force on force battle DO still happen. The first few days of the Iraq war involved a great deal of that. It just so happened that the (conventional) fighting didn't last long because the power ballance was so lopsided.