Modern slavery

[Ghogiel]

[Yes, I know what their charter is and what the purported purpose of the assembly is..and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Just a quick perusal of their performance in the field is something that I would recommend that you might want to scan...they stood by during the genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia with their boots on the ground. So forgive me if I remain skeptical as to their actual performance as compared to the goals purported.

Actually who else was in there trying to save lives?

 

As for Bosnia, I am not actually well read on that conflict tbh.

Edited May 31, 2011 by Ghogiel

[Aurielius]

[Yes, I know what their charter is and what the purported purpose of the assembly is..and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Just a quick perusal of their performance in the field is something that I would recommend that you might want to scan...they stood by during the genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia with their boots on the ground. So forgive me if I remain skeptical as to their actual performance as compared to the goals purported.

Actually who else was in there trying to save lives?

 

As for Bosnia, I am not actually well read on that conflict tbh.

A military force that retreats at actuality of initial casualties is of very little value, thats is if you are the victim that they are supposed to protect.

[Ghogiel]

The UN actually isn't a military force.

 

Edit: perhaps if at the time of Rwanda/Bosnia conflict, the US had actually been paying something to fund the UN, then maybe it would have been more effective at peace keeping?

It seems odd to me on the one hand to slate its effectiveness and appearing to be a on the side of the country that actively might have had a role in that out come of events.

 

Is there some sort of reason why you think the world would be better off with out the UN?

Edited May 31, 2011 by Ghogiel

[Aurielius]

The UN actually isn't a military force.

 

Edit: perhaps if at the time of Rwanda/Bosnia conflict, the US had actually been paying something to fund the UN, then maybe it would have been more effective at peace keeping?

It seems odd to me on the one hand to slate its effectiveness and appearing to be a on the side of the country that actively might have had a role in that out come of events.

 

Is there some sort of reason why you think the world would be better off with out the UN?

Well you can't have it both ways, if the UN cannot not actually perform as a military force then one might as well send a troop of Crime Scene Investigators for all the good it will do the the victims and they can collect evidence for future trials at the Hague. I find it droll that the usual outcry is against US military intervention except when we do not do so. I might reverse this argument and inquire why the Deutsches Heer does not do more than provide logistical support when there is a shooting conflict? ( and I am aware of the FDR constitutional restrictions) We (US) use our military in furtherance of our national interests of which being the world's policeman is not the mandate. I never said that we would be better off without a UN that actually lives up to it's charter, which would be a change of pace from it's actual performance.

[Ghogiel]

I don't know about the Germany military and what it is up to tbh. I'm an American. Who even makes this call for who gets what role in a peacekeeping mission anyway?

 

From my perspective on the US using its military as a peace keeping force, that would be great, however it needs to only fulfil that task, to do so under UN sanction, and also not partake in setting up any governments, nor par take in any war profiteering. Internationally the US isn't seen as trustworthy for such a task, as you put it, it uses its military to further its own national interest. (aka the US Gov.)

Edited May 31, 2011 by Ghogiel

[SilverDNA]

The UN actually isn't a military force.

 

Edit: perhaps if at the time of Rwanda/Bosnia conflict, the US had actually been paying something to fund the UN, then maybe it would have been more effective at peace keeping?

It seems odd to me on the one hand to slate its effectiveness and appearing to be a on the side of the country that actively might have had a role in that out come of events.

 

Is there some sort of reason why you think the world would be better off with out the UN?

Well you can't have it both ways, if the UN cannot not actually perform as a military force then one might as well send a troop of Crime Scene Investigators for all the good it will do the the victims and they can collect evidence for future trials at the Hague. I find it droll that the usual outcry is against US military intervention except when we do not do so. I might reverse this argument and inquire why the Deutsches Heer does not do more than provide logistical support when there is a shooting conflict? ( and I am aware of the FDR constitutional restrictions) We (US) use our military in furtherance of our national interests of which being the world's policeman is not the mandate. I never said that we would be better off without a UN that actually lives up to it's charter, which would be a change of pace from it's actual performance.

 

Oh a question for Germany....

Mostly it is the German Luftwaffe and the German Marine that does the support with it Hercules C130 and their Ships to and since Germany has a historic responsibility that the German military is fully aware of we only lend support. question answered ?

One example of what has changed prior to the history common knowledge of the world...

Shortly after 9/11 a heated debate with German politician and the heads of Interior Ministry and Defense Ministry seamed to agree to the point that if similar things happened in Germany like 9/11 they would give order to the Lufftwaffe to shoot the jumbo jets down...

as they where arguing still after some months and the possibility that they would rule out that way mentioned above.

The pilots of the Lufftwaffe made a a statement that couldn't be ignored by the politicians.

The pilots stated out that if they would shoot one jumbo jet down with innocent passengers this would violate the German constitutional law §1 and §2 (see Spoiler) and the the family members of the such killed could declare it a constitutional violation and charge the pilots directly for a crime even that aroused from circumstances that would mean of shooting down a jumbo jet. The pilots stated out that they would all disobey an illegal order to violate the German constitution. (Hereby to all those pilots and members of the German Luftwaffe that supported this and are on the Nexus, one word: RESPEKT! You certainly earned it with that move.) Now they don't have qualms to shoot down on Cessna but innocent lives that are not only on graound in danger but in German airspace as well have these rights.

This was prior to the awareness of responsibility of the history of Germany that caused that the politicians did rowed back from their original plans.

and now to bring you on topic again this is one little step that has changed to support any measures that humans are not salves and are subjects of numbers of collateral damage counts in my opinion as long as the German military is aware of their historic responsibilities and and acting according to the laws of Germany witch are strongly woven to the Human rights there is hope that modern day slavery and oppression isn't coming through the military back door as it was once in Germany. And one simple add it is harder to disobey illegal orders in other countries than in Germany now. All i am here pointing out is that Germany has a historic responsibility and is trying to live up to it.

Germany 8 points

 

 

Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany

I. BASIC RIGHTS

Protection of human dignity 1. - ( 1 ) The dignity of man is inviolable. To respect and protect it is the duty of all state authority.

 

( 2 ) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.

( 3 ) The following basic rights bind the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as directly enforceable law.

 

Rights of liberty

2. - ( 1 ) Everyone has the right to the free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral code.

 

( 2 ) Everyone has the right to life and to inviolability of his person. The freedom of the individual is inviolable. These rights may only be encroached upon pursuant to a law.

 

 

Edited May 31, 2011 by SilverDNA

[HeyYou]

I am not even sure the UN soldiers carry ammo for their weapons. Not like they ever use them in defense of anyone, not even themselves.

 

The UN makes a lot of noise, but, are basically ignored, as they have demonstrated that you CAN ignore them, with zero consequences. They have had some pretty good blunders in the recent past, that blows the snot out of what little credibility they had left. The UN was in Darfur, and thousands died anyway. The UN did nothing.

 

They have no authority. They have no credibility. They have no will to actually DO what their charter says. So, what's the point of throwing huge piles of cash at them?

[Ghogiel]

The aid work, food, medicine, doctors, the dozens of other peacekeeping and humanitarian operations it has performed. From my naive perspective it appears, when it isn't being manipulated by countries on the security council for their own ends, it does a good job

 

 

Just because their is no country or power that can actually physical or economically sanction the US or its agenda, or hold the US to such sanctions doesn't mean the UN isn't saying some right s*** that someone needs to be saying. If it isn't the UNs job to inspect for weapons etc who else is its?

 

also If you look at it, the US appears to try to fubar UN due course nearly every time. The blackmailing other countries on the council to persuade them to vote in favour of an Iraq invasion, the US advising them to pull out of Rwanda prior to the Genocide, iirc one UN official in Iraq after the first war called the sanctions genocide, and was pushing a majority secular population into fundamentalism(yeah way before 9/11 and before anyone actually cared about extremists) and the US&UK was the one sitting there on the council not listening to the guy they sent there to report back on this matter, because those sanctions allowed them to have complete control of its oil revenue. basically if it could do its job it probably would, and if it isn't it's probably a minority of countries agendas being played out.

 

I reckon if you delve further into it, its worst mistakes and failing could very well end up on the plate of perhaps 4 countries own governments basically being *bleep*.

Edited May 31, 2011 by Ghogiel

[HeyYou]

As I recall, the UN didn't want us to invade Iraq, but, we did anyway.... And yes, I agree, that had "bad plan" written all over it. Iraq was actually better off under Saddam. (and Iran was more firmly in check as well.)

 

Sure, the UN DOES do some good, but, like many other things, it is a duplication of effort. There are MANY privately funded organizations that do the exact same things, and do a better job...... Difference is, the UN folks get paid, while the other folks are just charities.

 

Atomic inspectors? So, tell me, what good have they done? Did they stop N. Korea from developing bombs? Have they stopped, or even slowed down, Iran's nuclear program? Do the inspectors have free reign to inspect where they want to? Or, do the various countries just show them what they think they want to see (complying with whatever UN edicts....)?? Are there any inspectors in Iran now? Do we know how many nukes Israel has? Do we know how many Pakistan has? Sure, it's was a good idea at the time, but, just like every other 'government' endeavor, they fall well short of the goal, if they even know what the goal is.

 

Is any of that going to change? Nope. Not a whit. Unless, and until, the UN steps up, and PROVES they have a backbone, they are going to remain just as ineffectual as they are today.

[csgators]

I think the bottom line is that tax 'burden' is relative. if you're paying 50% of your income in taxes, you don't feel so bad knowing that that guy with the 6 figure salary is also paying 50% of what he makes to taxes. The anger comes into play when most people are paying 60-70% while those who are better off are paying 20% or less if they know what tricks they can use to get around most of it, or when people see their tax money going to pet projects that only help relatives of politicians or companies who contribute to campaigns.

 

Actually the anger comes from paying 30-40% just in income taxes and realizing that 50% of households pay NO taxes at all (some make money on taxes) and then they keep voting for higher and higher spending. The system doesn't work when half the population votes to steal from the other half.

 

It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners -- households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 -- paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.

 

Note: I am no where near that top 10%.

 

So I guess this system sounds fair to people then? Half the population not only not paying taxes but profiting from them instead? Why do you think any and every tax cut can be demagogued as a tax cut for the rich? Because the poor pay no taxes.