DogOnPorch Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 I would rather donate it to the UN instead of disband it. I don't like the idea of wasting the money. Give the UN an army. I would suggest we keep paying, feeding, housing our guys, but equipping them should fall to the UN. lol...no...we shall not be giving the UN an army. Works both ways, Jerry. Perhaps the UN mobocracy will decide to take out the true north strong n' free on a whim. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
jbg Posted December 4, 2012 Report Posted December 4, 2012 Something we were warned about a few decades ago. But no one listened to him. It's great that Presidents warn of things in their valedictory address that they never opposed while serving as Presidents. Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex. Washington warned of "foreign entanglements." Neither did much to further their warning either while in the White House or before or after their terms.To my mind these "warnings" are cheap, cheesy stunts. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
GostHacked Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) I would rather donate it to the UN instead of disband it. I don't like the idea of wasting the money. Give the UN an army. I would suggest we keep paying, feeding, housing our guys, but equipping them should fall to the UN. That is a really dumb idea. Knowing how ineffective the UN has been. Then there is the question of a country's sovereignty. You really want the UN to control what we do here in Canada? Edited December 5, 2012 by GostHacked Quote
Topaz Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 Can one imagine how different things would be between these two countries IF Israel became part of the USA and Palestine became part of Russia or China??? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 Can one imagine how different things would be between these two countries IF Israel became part of the USA and Palestine became part of Russia or China??? We tried that in the 1970s. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
GostHacked Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 It's great that Presidents warn of things in their valedictory address that they never opposed while serving as Presidents. Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex. Washington warned of "foreign entanglements." Neither did much to further their warning either while in the White House or before or after their terms. To my mind these "warnings" are cheap, cheesy stunts. Washington is one of the world's biggest proponents of 'foreign entanglements'. With entities like the CIA they have poked their nose into many places creating a problem in which the USA's industrial military complex can take to task. I call that creating the problem to provide the solution. Quote
Bonam Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 Washington is one of the world's biggest proponents of 'foreign entanglements'. jbg was talking about George Washington, not Washington DC. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 lol...no...we shall not be giving the UN an army. Works both ways, Jerry. Perhaps the UN mobocracy will decide to take out the true north strong n' free on a whim. You really feel threatened by the UN ? I mean really ,,,,, giving the UN the Canadian military makes them scary then.....or are they scary now? Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 That is a really dumb idea. Knowing how ineffective the UN has been. Then there is the question of a country's sovereignty. You really want the UN to control what we do here in Canada? Dumb...? There is a reason the UN is ineffective, you must know this. The Security Council has the power to veto, its a democracy killer. The UN needs to be revamped, giving them the teeth of a military would make them able to be the world police that is so very needed. I believe there are only two kinds of politics; local and not. If it isn't our own little corner of the world then its everyone else's corner too isn't it? Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 Can one imagine how different things would be between these two countries IF Israel became part of the USA and Palestine became part of Russia or China??? Isn't that the way it is anyway? Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 Washington is one of the world's biggest proponents of 'foreign entanglements'. With entities like the CIA they have poked their nose into many places creating a problem in which the USA's industrial military complex can take to task. I call that creating the problem to provide the solution. Odd unless you consider the dollar bill portion of the equation. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted December 5, 2012 Report Posted December 5, 2012 You really feel threatened by the UN ? I mean really ,,,,, giving the UN the Canadian military makes them scary then.....or are they scary now? Giving the UN its own permanent dedicated army is indeed scary. As you can see, all it would take is a majority vote at the UN and voila. Bad day in Canada. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 Giving the UN its own permanent dedicated army is indeed scary. As you can see, all it would take is a majority vote at the UN and voila. Bad day in Canada. Would we not have to do something wrong first? Or do you suggest that it is normal at the UN to have a vote on military intervention against a nation that has done nothing wrong? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted December 8, 2012 Report Posted December 8, 2012 Would we not have to do something wrong first? Or do you suggest that it is normal at the UN to have a vote on military intervention against a nation that has done nothing wrong? Define' wrong' to a large block headed by say...Iran. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
login Posted December 8, 2012 Report Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) Define' wrong' to a large block headed by say...Iran. The UN is generally only suppose to become involved for "security threats", this regime change BS is political abuse of the UNO. It all went downhill with Korea, basically the whole concept of preventing problems. But creating civil wars to legitimize invasion contrary to the UN charter of interstate non interferance is abuse. And we know this is what NATO is doing. Edited December 8, 2012 by login Quote
DogOnPorch Posted December 8, 2012 Report Posted December 8, 2012 The UN is generally only suppose to become involved for "security threats", this regime change BS is political abuse of the UNO. It all went downhill with Korea, basically the whole concept of preventing problems. But creating civil wars to legitimize invasion contrary to the UN charter of interstate non interferance is abuse. And we know this is what NATO is doing. South Korea is a great success. My point is that if you can get a UN witch hunt going for Israel, getting the same going for Canada is merely a matter of focus. Best make sure the armies are added after the mission is decided...not before. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
login Posted December 9, 2012 Report Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) South Korea is a great success. My point is that if you can get a UN witch hunt going for Israel, getting the same going for Canada is merely a matter of focus. Best make sure the armies are added after the mission is decided...not before. I'm not interested in discussing what ifs, but I feel Korea could have been even more successful if a non military solution was sought The UN isn't a place for warmaking. Korea was just a byproduct of McCarthyism.... if US didn't have strategic interests there they wouldn't give two sh!ts about Koreans to the South of Korea. Edited December 9, 2012 by login Quote
jbg Posted December 9, 2012 Report Posted December 9, 2012 Korea was just a byproduct of McCarthyism.... if US didn't have strategic interests there they wouldn't give two sh!ts about Koreans to the South of Korea. One of the few times you and I will agree. I feel that we should have left Korea and Vietnam to their own devices and then openly involved ourselves where vital Western interests, such as oil, were at stake. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
DogOnPorch Posted December 9, 2012 Report Posted December 9, 2012 I'm not interested in discussing what ifs, but I feel Korea could have been even more successful if a non military solution was sought A non-military solution? The North Koreans invaded. Before long the ROK troops and the few American troops in the area were hemmed in at the Pusan pocket. It took MacArthur landing at Inchon to save the day. Korea was just a byproduct of McCarthyism.... if US didn't have strategic interests there they wouldn't give two sh!ts about Koreans to the South of Korea. Again...the Communists invaded...not the other way around. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted December 9, 2012 Report Posted December 9, 2012 One of the few times you and I will agree. I feel that we should have left Korea and Vietnam to their own devices and then openly involved ourselves where vital Western interests, such as oil, were at stake. The West left South Viet-Nam to die. It didn't have to be that way. The genocide that followed is a dark stain on the so-called anti-war crowd. Sometimes you have to stand firm...or bad sh!t happens. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
jbg Posted December 9, 2012 Report Posted December 9, 2012 The West left South Viet-Nam to die. It didn't have to be that way. The genocide that followed is a dark stain on the so-called anti-war crowd. Sometimes you have to stand firm...or bad sh!t happens. No question about it.But some fights weren't worth picking in the first place. There were more important places with respect to which to go on a wartime footing than Korea or Vietnam. The West was precluded from robust involvement in the Mideast in 1967 and 1973. The West should have unapologetically shut down the various Arab states after they stole nationalized our oil resources. We should not have ever had to put up with that nonsense. It was primarily because we were drained by Vietnam and Korea that we had to. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
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.