Discuss.

I believe that too much big government accomplishes very little good.  UN, pointless; constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage, ridiculous; total government control of business, not productive.

Wasn't it the originally G.W. (George Washington) that said we should keep no indefinate treaties with other countries?

Someone said that the US should have freidnly relations with all countries an entangling relations with none, or something similar. Unfortunately, when that was said, get entangled with a nation was a rather difficult and time-consuming process. These days, it's much harder to avoid. I like the principle, but I think it's wishful thinking.

I think it would be easy enough to start to move to become more isolationistic in terms of other countries' human rights & aid & the like.  If we just focus on business with other countries & giving aid to our own countries then maybe it all would work better & fewer people would have their toes stepped on

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12484.msg123766#msg123766 date=1123631880]
Wasn't it the originally G.W. (George Washington) that said we should keep no indefinate treaties with other countries?
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure most treaties expire, and usually get rewritten with new terms as such. They also get broken through war pacts and etc.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12484.msg123766#msg123766 date=1123631880]

Wasn't it the originally G.W. (George Washington) that said we should keep no indefinate treaties with other countries?
[/quote]

So my 8th grade history teacher said.

[quote author=Topaz link=topic=12484.msg123809#msg123809 date=1123646621]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12484.msg123766#msg123766 date=1123631880]
Wasn't it the originally G.W. (George Washington) that said we should keep no indefinate treaties with other countries?
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure most treaties expire, and usually get rewritten with new terms as such. They also get broken through war pacts and etc.
[/quote]So when does the UN expire?

The UN isn't a treaty in itself, just a global(?) alliance(?).

A treaty is an alliance basically.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12484.msg123834#msg123834 date=1123691885]
A treaty is an alliance basically.
[/quote]

No.

I think it depends on the situation. Bilateral talks with countries that we aren't friendly with and have governments not run by a single total complete wacko (like North Korea) are productive, but with NK, I think unilateral talks are key.

An alliance is a type of treaty, sorry, I had it backwards

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12484.msg123815#msg123815 date=1123650153]
[quote author=Topaz link=topic=12484.msg123809#msg123809 date=1123646621]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12484.msg123766#msg123766 date=1123631880]
Wasn't it the originally G.W. (George Washington) that said we should keep no indefinate treaties with other countries?
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure most treaties expire, and usually get rewritten with new terms as such. They also get broken through war pacts and etc.
[/quote]So when does the UN expire?
[/quote]

Mmm, beer is good

It did expire...it expired when the soviet union fell...why does the US need to go through the UN when no one poses a threat to them?

The UN expired?...what is this thing in the news about the huge oil for food scandal that happened within the UN?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12484.msg123884#msg123884 date=1123718845]
The UN expired?...what is this thing in the news about the huge oil for food scandal that happened within the UN?
[/quote]

Although the UN provides aid, it fails in its objective...it's not able to stop the US's actions, it has no leverage to force the US to deal through it.  It sounds like another failure like the league of nations (which all it could do was point its finger at Japan and tell it that it was a bad boy).
Oh yeah, Colin Powell basically called it "obsolete"

Power has to balance power, but its not done in the modern world. America can overrule any country or alliance in its decision, and our manpower usually intimidates or even bullies other countries into submission or agreement to our terms. It's sad, really, because we really can't do too much about it.

So...when did the UN expire?

I don't think it did.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12484.msg123900#msg123900 date=1123728786]
So...when did the UN expire?
[/quote]

What the hell? Was that a serious question?

I don't like the UN, at all. They're rotten, dirty, and just plain no good. Sure, some member states have good intentions (like the Security Council, minus China) but other than that the small, terrorist breeding, Middle Eastern countries have too much power. They also use dirty scare-tactics in an attempt to sway policy makers. And on top of that, the US started this thing, we supply the majority of the funding (especially the upper echolon(sp?) of American society) and constantly have our desires pounced on. Meanwhile, the Secretary Generals son, many other officials, and probably Kofi Annan himself, are getting rich off of Saddams neglect of his people. Sure, the oil-for-food program gave Iraqis small amounts of food, but to quote a British journalist (whos name I forget, I'd look it up, but I lent my UN-corruption book out) "is not fit for rats." I personally feel the UN is all talk and no walk, and is furthermore a waste of money, and time. The idea is great, but like Communism, the practice isn't. The UN has overstayed its welcome in international policy, and should either be heavily, heavily reformed or replaced.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12484.msg123900#msg123900 date=1123728786]
So...when did the UN expire?
[/quote]

It was a figure of speech.  There is no expiration date, he was reffering to the fact it has been useless since the collapse of the cccp.

[quote author=nslay link=topic=12484.msg123883#msg123883 date=1123717121]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12484.msg123815#msg123815 date=1123650153]
[quote author=Topaz link=topic=12484.msg123809#msg123809 date=1123646621]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12484.msg123766#msg123766 date=1123631880]
Wasn't it the originally G.W. (George Washington) that said we should keep no indefinate treaties with other countries?
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure most treaties expire, and usually get rewritten with new terms as such. They also get broken through war pacts and etc.
[/quote]So when does the UN expire?
[/quote]

...
It did expire...
[/quote]
That's what I was reffering to

I thought it was just Kofi's son that was the dirty bastard?...Didn't Kofi just not notice the extreme corruption n the UN?

No, there were many people involved. His son was just the most shocking (since it was, well, his son.) I have a whole chapter in my book dedicated to it, but as I said I lent it out so I can't pull quotes. Just logically thinking, though, I'm doubting Kofi was clean in this whole ordeal.

"Innocent until proven guilty"...gotta remember that

I don't know, I'm still hoping he had nothing to do with it

I much prefer "Guilty until proven innocent." Still, he was cleared of corruption accusations by a panel appointed to investigate him, but I still have my doubts.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12484.msg123933#msg123933 date=1123743080]
I much prefer "Guilty until proven innocent." Still, he was cleared of corruption accusations by a panel appointed to investigate him, but I still have my doubts.


[/quote]

Sounds very... one-sided. If you can't prove the criminal guilty, or find at least reasonable doubt, then you're executing an innocent.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12484.msg123933#msg123933 date=1123743080]
I much prefer "Guilty until proven innocent." Still, he was cleared of corruption accusations by a panel appointed to investigate him, but I still have my doubts.


[/quote]Guilty until proven innocent isnt what America was built upon, its very pro-society & TOTALLY jumps all over a dude's rights

Too bad that's how justice is executed. If it wasn't, than "suspects" wouldn't be arrested or thrown into holding cells, thus removing their freedoms, until they were proven guilty.

And it's obvious Americans don't agree with that anymore either, just look at the Jackon trial.

America was built upon religion, but look at how that has changed.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12484.msg123938#msg123938 date=1123743472]
Too bad that's how justice is executed. If it wasn't, than "suspects" wouldn't be arrested or thrown into holding cells, thus removing their freedoms, until they were proven guilty.

And it's obvious Americans don't agree with that anymore either, just look at the Jackon trial.

America was built upon religion, but look at how that has changed.
[/quote]

If there's reasonable belief that the defendant is guilty, he is held until the trial. If he wins the trial, he goes free. That's the way the justice system works.

"beleif is not 'proven'" It's obvious we can't strictly follow that line, "innocent until proven guilty." Maybe it worked before there was a thing called airplanes, and thus "flight risk."

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12484.msg123938#msg123938 date=1123743472]
America was built upon religion, but look at how that has changed.
[/quote]

No it wasn't. America was built on religious people realizing they have to separate religion and government. Perhaps some ideas stemmed from Christianity (good ideas come from good ideas :)), but America was certainly not built upon religion.

Innocent until proven guilty is for private citizens to protect them from the government, not for public officials who need to held accountable for their actions. I don't think it should be the other way around, either, but everyone should certainly be wary of Kofi.

I think he means that if it wasn't for religion, America wouldn't be here today. The Pilgrims left England because the King forced all people to follow the Anglican church. Many people did not like this, so they decided to leave the country and create their own settlements. They did this because they wanted to practice their own religion freely. Thus American was created upon religion.

No, that would mean we were created BECAUSE of religous persecution.  BananaFanna man is right

Look at American society today, although it's less obvious, you can still see how we were built on puritanical beleifs. Thomas Jefferson, a founding father, was a strong advocate of religion. Sure, America was created with the freedom to worship freely, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying America was built on the Christian faith alone (though, it wouldn't be hard to argue that point I'd wager) but just that it was built with it's root based in the idea of religion, and religion itself.

When they were starving, freezing, and falling dead day after day, I'm sure they were praying to some sort of God as well. =)

The attitude behind that rant is the reason so many countries are bitchy towards the US.

Foreign aid is, to quote the West Wing, "the price you pay for being rich, free and alive, all at the same time". The same applies to all countries for which that is true.

I agree that being the #1 world power comes with the responsiblity to help everyone, but if they're going to give us that duty they shouldn't lash out when we also police the world, as I agree that also comes with the territory.

It just erks me when countries bite the hand that feeds them, to pull out a cliche.

The foreign aid we provide barely touches the surface, it being spread out among the various countries in need of it. Should we pull out, that would benefit us AND the numerous beliefs that we're the global tyrant and police.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12484.msg124026#msg124026 date=1123804916]
we also police the world, as I agree that also comes with the territory.
[/quote]

No. It really, really, really doesn't. The US cannot dictate proper conduct to the rest of the world. It is not appropriate or ethical for the US to be the world's dictator, any more than it is appropriate for a person to be the dictator of a country. The world must be policed by consensus. That is hard, but it is the only way. Unilateralism does more harm than good.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=12484.msg124029#msg124029 date=1123805315]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12484.msg124026#msg124026 date=1123804916]
we also police the world, as I agree that also comes with the territory.
[/quote]

No. It really, really, really doesn't. The US cannot dictate proper conduct to the rest of the world. It is not appropriate or ethical for the US to be the world's dictator, any more than it is appropriate for a person to be the dictator of a country. The world must be policed by consensus. That is hard, but it is the only way. Unilateralism does more harm than good.
[/quote]

Well, it's happening unfortunately...

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=12484.msg124029#msg124029 date=1123805315]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12484.msg124026#msg124026 date=1123804916]
we also police the world, as I agree that also comes with the territory.
[/quote]

No. It really, really, really doesn't. The US cannot dictate proper conduct to the rest of the world. It is not appropriate or ethical for the US to be the world's dictator, any more than it is appropriate for a person to be the dictator of a country. The world must be policed by consensus. That is hard, but it is the only way. Unilateralism does more harm than good.
[/quote]Ok, so we're supposed to give all these countries money & just let them knock us & then not even be able to enforce how the aid is used?  BS, screw them, they become their own damn super power

nslay, Fuck you.

Sadly, we can't just pull out, even if it's the best thing to do. We're already in too deep and too involved in their affairs to just tell them that we don't give a shit anymore.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=12484.msg124031#msg124031 date=1123809167]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=12484.msg124029#msg124029 date=1123805315]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=12484.msg124026#msg124026 date=1123804916]
we also police the world, as I agree that also comes with the territory.
[/quote]

No. It really, really, really doesn't. The US cannot dictate proper conduct to the rest of the world. It is not appropriate or ethical for the US to be the world's dictator, any more than it is appropriate for a person to be the dictator of a country. The world must be policed by consensus. That is hard, but it is the only way. Unilateralism does more harm than good.
[/quote]Ok, so we're supposed to give all these countries money & just let them knock us & then not even be able to enforce how the aid is used?  BS, screw them, they become their own damn super power
[/quote]

I personally don't think we should be giving forgien countrys aid to begin with, we have enough shit to deal with on the home front.  However I think the idea that helping them should require them to support us in everything we do is unrealistic.  I might love my family and they might help support me, but that does not neccisarilly mean I agree with everything they do...