carepov Posted July 6, 2012 Report Posted July 6, 2012 This has got to be the stupidest correlation-causation fallacies I've encountered all day. The inconvenient truth for you is that the world would be much more fee and prosperous today if the UN was not around. I guess that you haven't paid attention to your own rantings all day... Thesis: The UN has helped make the world safer, freer and more prosporous I have the correlation on my side, I would say that the burden of proof is on your side. Quote
carepov Posted July 6, 2012 Report Posted July 6, 2012 ...as a person. Would you rather be born in Harlem 1927 or Harlem 2012? Quote
kraychik Posted July 6, 2012 Report Posted July 6, 2012 I guess that you haven't paid attention to your own rantings all day... Thesis: The UN has helped make the world safer, freer and more prosporous I have the correlation on my side, I would say that the burden of proof is on your side. The world is less free and less prosperous than would otherwise be the case were it not for the UN and its subsidiaries. Freedom and prosperity are the exception in this world, not the norm. The UN has done nothing to spread either, and in fact, has done the opposite. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 6, 2012 Report Posted July 6, 2012 I have the correlation on my side, I would say that the burden of proof is on your side. Correlation is not causation. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
carepov Posted July 6, 2012 Report Posted July 6, 2012 The world is less free and less prosperous than would otherwise be the case were it not for the UN and its subsidiaries. Freedom and prosperity are the exception in this world, not the norm. The UN has done nothing to spread either, and in fact, has done the opposite. Can you back this up with a study or data? Quote
kraychik Posted July 6, 2012 Report Posted July 6, 2012 Can you back this up with a study or data? So you think such broad subject matter can be presented in a "study" where the methodology would be accepted by a leftist like yourself? Interesting. It's not like you'd ever read such a research paper that articulated such a thing, anyways, so why are you even asking for it? Quote
kraychik Posted July 6, 2012 Report Posted July 6, 2012 This is the standard refrain of leftists across the internet, "show me a website with a 'study' or I won't believe it". Leftists have such self-loathing that they can't advance or accept argumentation without an "expert" confirming it. This is the essence of hit-and-run posters who just spam links without even reading past the headlines. Quote
dre Posted July 7, 2012 Report Posted July 7, 2012 (edited) It's not complicated. No thats true its not complicated, its silly simplistic horseshit. Beliefs like that are what you get when you just blindly accept slogans without bothering to really look at them. Its a classic case of conventional wisdom gone wrong. You dont want step beyond your caricature of leftist philosophy regarding internationalism, and see whats really happening in the world, and who is really doing this stuff. Because if you did youd have to drop some of your little slogans. Centralization of control and erosion of individual sovereignty in the interests of "the greater good" is a leftist ideal No it isnt. Its an authoritarian ideal, which is the north/south axis of the political spectrum, and not a hallmark of either the right or the left. It just manifests itself differently. For example, some right wingers support things like the war on drugs, war on prostitution... perfect examples of the "erosion of individual sovereignty for the greater good". Its libertarians on both sides of the political spectrum that are opposed to government intrusions into personal liberty, and the authoritarians on both sides that are gleefully cheer it along. Something like this... http://nolan.jimeyer.org/graphics/nolanchart_withindices.jpg And your simplistic sophormoric view of political philosophy is why you get this stuff wrong. For example sigs is pretty conservative yet hes arguing for more democracy in the UN. Im fairly liberal in some ways but I dont favor surrendering any real power what-so-ever to any global authorities. I see the UN as a table that sovereign nations can sit around and talk, but its not a real entity and shouldnt have any real power at all. Edited July 7, 2012 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
carepov Posted July 7, 2012 Report Posted July 7, 2012 So you think such broad subject matter can be presented in a "study" where the methodology would be accepted by a leftist like yourself? Interesting. It's not like you'd ever read such a research paper that articulated such a thing, anyways, so why are you even asking for it? OK, why not start with one example of where the UN hindered freedom and prosperity? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 7, 2012 Report Posted July 7, 2012 OK, why not start with one example of where the UN hindered freedom and prosperity? Ummm...OK...here 'Ya go: Indonesia and East Timor http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/27353 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Signals.Cpl Posted July 7, 2012 Report Posted July 7, 2012 Part A: Equal voting in the UNSC The UNGA has a one state one vote policy in place which means that Canada's vote is in fact equal to that of Iran which is equal to that of North Korea, that is a fact and my proposal is not aimed at the GA but is aimed towards the SC. Currently the UNSC is divided in two distinct groups, the 5 permanent members with veto powers and the 10 elected members without veto powers, to get a resolution passed 60% of the SC members must vote for the resolution including the 5 permanent members. The 10 elected members are elected to the SC based on seats allocated to different regions there being 5 regional groups in all and elections being held every years with half of the elected seats coming up for election at the end of their 2 years term. Proposal: What I am proposing is to increase the SC to 25 members and increase the permanent members to between 7 and 9, and the remaining seats being allocated based on region in a reworked formula. Permanent members will be obligated to pay an equal share in to the UNSC budget to end the inherently unfair free ride that a number of nations have been taking at the expense of the United States and in order to raise more funds for the organization, at the same time elected member states will also be required to increase their obligation to a lower but even level for all elected nations to the SC council. Once this is taken care of veto power is to be removed in order to increase the abilities of the UNSC to do the task necessary to carry out their mandate but the necessary approval would be increase to 18/25 or 72%. Why? Historically the UNSC has not been able to act in a proper or timely fashion to limit or prevent a limited and local conflict from potentially expanding in scope unless one side of the UNSC was boycotting the vote for one reason or another(Korean War). The goal is to have a majority rule scenario in order to eliminate the national interest of one nation being forced on the whole body such as what is happening in Syria. Part B: Professional Peacekeeping and Peace Enforcing Force The current situation is that there are 99,118 Uniformed members deployed on UN peacekeeping mission as of May 2012, of those deployed 14,497 are police officers either in training or law enforcement capacity, 2,323 are (potentially unarmed) military observers, and 82,298 are Armed soldiers. The total strength is drawn from 117 countries with 5 1 countries deploying over 5,000 uniformed personnel and 22 2 countries deploying more than 1,000 but less than 5,000 personnel and due to the large number of contributors there is a significant difference in the Quality of training, equipment and discipline between the Uniformed members of different nations e.g. Uniformed members from the United States and Zimbabwe where a significant gap in training, discipline and equipment exists. Proposal: The proposal is to create a permanent UN force of peacekeepers, soldiers, and police in order to maintain a standard that goes through all units that are part of this force by having the same standard equipment, training and discipline and the force answers directly to the Department of Peacekeeping Operations which would take their orders directly from the United Nations Security Council. -Peacekeepers would be lightly armed soldiers that are meant to separate the two or more sides of a dormant conflict and as the initial force deployed on all peacekeeping missions. -United Nations police forces would be used as training cadre to develop police forces and maintaining law and order in areas with limited police presence until such a time as the local authorities could take over those duties -Heavily armed soldiers who would be used in high risk environments and in peace enforcement missions as a stopgap measure between the time that the soldiers are needed on the ground and the time when the SC council finds suitable forces to deploy on the mission. By necessity they would be heavily armed and armoured and trained to a high standard and in possession of air assault capabilities. This by nature would be a small force that would provide the UNSC with options to quickly deploy armed units to avert disaster. Why? By having their own pool of well equipped and well trained units the UN can respond to problem areas in a much quicker fashion while the SC finds suitable donor nations for equipment and soldiers when/if a Chapter 7 becomes a necessity. ----------------------------------------------- 1)Contributors with over 5,000 uniformed members: *Bangladesh *Ethiopia *India *Nigeria *Pakistan 2)Contributors of between 1,000 and 5,000 uniformed members: *Argentina *Benin *Brazil *Burkina Faso *China *Egypt *France *Ghana *Indonesia *Italy *Jordan *Malaysia *Marocco *Nepal *Niger *Rwanda *Senegal *South Africa *Spain *Sri Lanka *Tanzania *Uruguay Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
carepov Posted July 7, 2012 Report Posted July 7, 2012 Ummm...OK...here 'Ya go: Indonesia and East Timor http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/27353 hmmm... I don't think so - but I will get back to you... In the mean time - I am curious on what kraychik would say about your source. Quote
dre Posted July 7, 2012 Report Posted July 7, 2012 hmmm... I don't think so - but I will get back to you... In the mean time - I am curious on what kraychik would say about your source. I betcha some kind of infantile rant about leftists will be part of it. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
waldo Posted July 7, 2012 Report Posted July 7, 2012 I thought Mugabe getting an UN Tourism ambassador position was pretty funny. you sir... are spreading a falsehood! Please edit your post to correct your mistake - carry on. Where are they holding the conference again? lol...we didn't mean ambassador....we meant champion of tourism. you know the answer to where the conference is being co-located - your own link speaks to, "Zimbabwe and Zambia as co-hosts of the 2013 conference. is this your 2 emoticon level way of acknowledging that you were incorrect... that you were spreading a falsehood? Show some integrity and correct your initial post, hey? Cool that you support Mugabe. He needs friends. first you knowingly spread a falsehood, now you're making shyte up. Correcting the falsehood was a counter to another unwarranted UN slag. You making shyte up simply shows you have no game. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 7, 2012 Report Posted July 7, 2012 (edited) you know the answer to where the conference is being co-located - your own link speaks to, "Zimbabwe and Zambia as co-hosts of the 2013 conference. is this your 2 emoticon level way of acknowledging that you were incorrect... that you were spreading a falsehood? Show some integrity and correct your initial post, hey? first you knowingly spread a falsehood, now you're making shyte up. Correcting the falsehood was a counter to another unwarranted UN slag. You making shyte up simply shows you have no game. A Mugabe supporter...wow. Better write an email to John Baird and inform him he's got this great man wrong. Edited July 7, 2012 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest Peeves Posted July 7, 2012 Report Posted July 7, 2012 http://www.anorak.co.uk/310882/news/syria-still-wants-that-seat-on-the-un-human-rights-council-russia-arabs-and-china-agree.html/ And I want a bit of common sense but...I ain't gonna get it from the UN. Syria still wants that seat on the UN Human Rights Council – Russia, Arabs and China agree Quote
waldo Posted July 8, 2012 Report Posted July 8, 2012 A Mugabe supporter...wow. Better write an email to John Baird and inform him he's got this great man wrong. correcting false UN slags and your malicious spread of that falsehood... along with dealing with you making up shyte... none of that makes one a, as you say, "Mugabe supporter". It just showcases your flailing about and your lack of meaningful and substantive commentary. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 8, 2012 Report Posted July 8, 2012 correcting false UN slags and your malicious spread of that falsehood... along with dealing with you making up shyte... none of that makes one a, as you say, "Mugabe supporter". It just showcases your flailing about and your lack of meaningful and substantive commentary. The fact that you view Mugabe being termed UN tourism ambassador rather than UN tourism champion as a 'malicious falsehood' tells me that you're practically in love with the man. Why is this? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bleeding heart Posted July 8, 2012 Report Posted July 8, 2012 Waldo is "practically in love with [Mugabe]"? Where'd you get that from? Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
waldo Posted July 8, 2012 Report Posted July 8, 2012 The fact that you view Mugabe being termed UN tourism ambassador rather than UN tourism champion as a 'malicious falsehood' tells me that you're practically in love with the man. Why is this? and so you continue! The falsehood has/had nothing to do with Mugabe, the person... the falsehood was a/the willingness to purposely... and maliciously... (falsely) denigrate the UN. You, of course, played right into it, lapped it up, and quite willingly also spread that falsehood. The maliciousness was (also) yours in full knowing you were spreading a falsehood, with purpose and wanton abandon. But please, continue with your silly-buggar act... it is rather amusing to read you attempting to cover-up your being outed. Quote
bleeding heart Posted July 8, 2012 Report Posted July 8, 2012 It's funny, too, that when discussing the flaws of the UN....the biggest and most powerful members are never held to account for their behaviour. If only it weren't for the third world nations, the real countries would run the UN splendidly! I mean, all history and evidence contradicts this...but it just feels so warm and good to feel this way. As Hemingway said, "Isn't it pretty to think so?" Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
DogOnPorch Posted July 8, 2012 Report Posted July 8, 2012 What's this Bull Sheet, eh? I could care less if Canada belongs to the UN. Nor, really, do I care if waldo wants to be in Mugabe's Will. Or Mugabe's beeatch, for that matter...you choose. About morals, I know only that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after. ---Ernest Hemingway Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bleeding heart Posted July 8, 2012 Report Posted July 8, 2012 What's this Bull Sheet, eh? I could care less if Canada belongs to the UN. Nor, really, do I care if waldo wants to be in Mugabe's Will. Or Mugabe's beeatch, for that matter...you choose. Obviously you do care. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
DogOnPorch Posted July 8, 2012 Report Posted July 8, 2012 Obviously you do care. You do not speak for me, bloodyminded. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bleeding heart Posted July 8, 2012 Report Posted July 8, 2012 You do not speak for me, bloodyminded. If you didn't care, you wouldn't devolve into pretending that everyone who disputes you loves dictators, or terrorists, or Nazis, or any other parts of your (limited) arsenal. Indifference is what indifference does. And your responses don't qualify. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.