• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US flexes muscles as it sends aircraft carriers to Persian Gulf

Lokiate said:
I just want one decade. One decade of zero international conflict so we can focus on domestic problems. Apparently that's asking too much. Where the hell is the UN on this? We aren't the only nation in the UN with a strong Naval force.
Click to expand...

Gosh, that would be nice if the UN actually had teeth, wouldn't it?
 
Lokiate said:
I think we should start looking for ways to withdraw from the UN. It's nothing but trouble, always has been.
Click to expand...

You would be hard pressed to find a decade in American history in which some conflict, intervention, or maritime activity did not take place. This is because the US does not live alone, and foreign events have a tremendous impact on our country. It is an enduring myth that our founding fathers believed in an isolationist and secluded foreign policy. This is not true in either word or deed despite Washington's farewell address which was more of a cry in the wilderness (and misinterpreted at that) than common consensus.
 
Lokiate said:
I think we should start looking for ways to withdraw from the UN. It's nothing but trouble, always has been.
Click to expand...

That is silly. It would undermine US legitimacy, undermine our ability to project our norms, undermine our ability to use it as a bully club against our foes, it would cause a cascade of unforeseen problems. If you want to create an alternate and simultaneous organization of states aligned with US values and interests however you have my support.
 
Also to a recurring point in this discussion, the UN is a mechanism not an actor. The UN cannot 'clear' the straits of Hormuz, it can only authorize someone to do so. And in that sort of situation authorization would both not be needed, and would be quickly forthcoming.
 
Sherman123 said:
That is silly. It would undermine US legitimacy, undermine our ability to project our norms, undermine our ability to use it as a bully club against our foes, it would cause a cascade of unforeseen problems. If you want to create an alternate and simultaneous organization of states aligned with US values and interests however you have my support.
Click to expand...

The hell are you talking about? The world knows what we can do, and we shouldn't be projecting, or threatening anyone. Our hands are constantly tied because of stupid international ****, to the extent that it has undermined our sociopolitical infrastructure.
 
Sherman123 said:
Also to a recurring point in this discussion, the UN is a mechanism not an actor. The UN cannot 'clear' the straits of Hormuz, it can only authorize someone to do so. And in that sort of situation authorization would both not be needed, and would be quickly forthcoming.
Click to expand...

And guess who gets the job by default?
 
Lokiate said:
The hell are you talking about? The world knows what we can do, and we shouldn't be projecting, or threatening anyone. Our hands are constantly tied because of stupid international ****, to the extent that it has undermined our sociopolitical infrastructure.
Click to expand...

The world doesn't work like that, and I'm not sure what you are trying to say. It is in the US interests to be at the UN for the reasons I mentioned, and if the worst cost is the annual contribution to its coffers it is a cost well worth paying. We have interests overseas that we need to protect and agitate for.
 
Lokiate said:
And guess who gets the job by default?
Click to expand...

The largest democratic country with the greatest blue water fleet and her allies in an attempt to secure a vital energy node? I think that is the United States.
 
Sherman123 said:
The world doesn't work like that, and I'm not sure what you are trying to say. It is in the US interests to be at the UN for the reasons I mentioned, and if the worst cost is the annual contribution to its coffers it is a cost well worth paying. We have interests overseas that we need to protect and agitate for.
Click to expand...

I've made what what I'm saying clear as crystal: The UN is a parasite, and we need to separate ourselves from them before we collapse entirely.

The largest democratic country with the greatest blue water fleet and her allies in an attempt to secure a vital energy node? I think that is the United States.
Click to expand...
More like the worlds biggest sucker. We have a 15 trillion dollar deficit and we're spending millions to put our carriers in position to protect interests that we will not have exclusive rights to. It's a scam.
 
Lokiate said:
I've made what what I'm saying clear as crystal: The UN is a parasite, and we need to separate ourselves from them before we collapse entirely.


More like the worlds biggest sucker. We have a 15 trillion dollar deficit and we're spending millions to put our carriers in position to protect interests that we will not have exclusive rights to. It's a scam.
Click to expand...

Explain how it is a parasite? And sure the US deficit is a problem, let's start attacking the problem of entitlements, not unilaterally withdraw from the most prominent global organization on the planet because of a few bills (which we usually don't pay btw).
 
Sherman123 said:
Explain how it is a parasite? And sure the US deficit is a problem, let's start attacking the problem of entitlements, not unilaterally withdraw from the most prominent global organization on the planet because of a few bills (which we usually don't pay btw).
Click to expand...

for such a parasite, it has little power or authority
notice how it was unable the USA from the folly that became the war in iraq
not that it didn't try
 
Sherman123 said:
Explain how it is a parasite? And sure the US deficit is a problem, let's start attacking the problem of entitlements, not unilaterally withdraw from the most prominent global organization on the planet because of a few bills (which we usually don't pay btw).
Click to expand...

Because every treaty we sign with them is constitutionally binding. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade regulates how we can trade, NATO was used by us to lock other nations into Operation Eagle Assist, several defense based treaties force us to defend others, and likewise, whether it is beneficial for any party concerned, or not. Open Skies treaty is an interesting one, since it forces us to allow other signers of the treaty to monitor our military forces and activity via aerial recon. There's more, but I'm tired and have to start winding down for the night.

The bills are the problem. Our obligations to the UN through these treaties are costing us more money than we can generate.

justabubba said:
for such a parasite, it has little power or authority
Click to expand...
Treaties have a lot of authority. Article VI of the US Constitution states:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
 
Lokiate said:
Because every treaty we sign with them is constitutionally binding. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade regulates how we can trade, NATO was used by us to lock other nations into Operation Eagle Assist, several defense based treaties force us to defend others, and likewise, whether it is beneficial for any party concerned, or not. Open Skies treaty is an interesting one, since it forces us to allow other signers of the treaty to monitor our military forces and activity via aerial recon. There's more, but I'm tired and have to start winding down for the night.

The bills are the problem. Our obligations to the UN through these treaties are costing us more money than we can generate.


Treaties have a lot of authority. Article VI of the US Constitution states:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Click to expand...


Every treaty the US signs no matter what is constitutionally binding. Secondly do you think that GATT or NATO had anything to do with the UN? They do not. The US has always been free to sign onto treaties or not to and it did this hundreds of times before the creation of the UN. It has to do with how we perceive these treaties in terms of utility and perspective, not the UN. You aren't talking about withdrawing from the UN, you are talking about withdrawing from the world.
 
Sherman123 said:
Every treaty the US signs no matter what is constitutionally binding.
Click to expand...
I know, I already said that and posted text from the Constitution supporting my claim.

Secondly do you think that GATT or NATO had anything to do with the UN? They do not.
Click to expand...
GATT was negotiated in a UN conference. NATO and the UN have been cooperating together since inception of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and officially joined together in 2008.

The US has always been free to sign onto treaties or not to and it did this hundreds of times before the creation of the UN.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is, when a president makes a bad policy move, it can be reversed. We can't reverse a treaty.

It has to do with how we perceive these treaties in terms of utility and perspective, not the UN.
Click to expand...
No, it has to do with our involvement with the UN being detrimental to the US.

You aren't talking about withdrawing from the UN, you are talking about withdrawing from the world.
Click to expand...
No, that's just what your opinion of me. Nowhere have I stated such a thing.
 
Lokiate said:
I know, I already said that and posted text from the Constitution supporting my claim.


GATT was negotiated in a UN conference. NATO and the UN have been cooperating together since inception of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and officially joined together in 2008.


The problem with that is, when a president makes a bad policy move, it can be reversed. We can't reverse a treaty.


No, it has to do with our involvement with the UN being detrimental to the US.


No, that's just what your opinion of me. Nowhere have I stated such a thing.
Click to expand...

What does it matter that it was negotiated at first at the UN? Nor was the ITO a UN body. What does it matter? The US supported a global trade regimen that would reduce tariffs and export regulatory burdens if you oppose that fine, but that has little to do with the UN as a body. Secondly NATO and the UN are not the same thing and I'm not sure what you are referring to, the summit head meetings? Thirdly, so what is your point? That the US should not have had the treaty clause in the Constitution? Also the US can reverse a treaty, you can withdraw from it or abrogate it a decent example is the ABM treaty. Fourthly how is it detrimental? It is useful interlocutor for international negotiations, it is good mechanism for restraining many of our foes, it allows a greater expression of US norms, etc etc. Fifthly well it sure seems like it given how focused you have been the various treaties and security commitments the US has and how quickly we must withdraw from them.
 
Sherman123 said:
What does it matter that it was negotiated at first at the UN?
Click to expand...
Because it's a UN treaty. GATT was passed in 1947. ITO came into existence the following year.

What does it matter?
Click to expand...
The point is, all of these treaties add up, and it's costing us more than it's worth. This answers your question of how the UN is a parasite.

Fourthly how is it detrimental?
Click to expand...
Lack of representation. The American People have no say, despite its effect on us.

well it sure seems like it given how focused you have been the various treaties and security commitments the US has and how quickly we must withdraw from them.
Click to expand...
Still your opinion. We can do all kinds of **** without being bound to treaties. The UN is not necessary for America to thrive, nor is it necessary for us to have relations with other countries.
 
Lokiate said:
Because it's a UN treaty. GATT was passed in 1947. ITO came into existence the following year.


The point is, all of these treaties add up, and it's costing us more than it's worth. This answers your question of how the UN is a parasite.


Lack of representation. The American People have no say, despite its effect on us.


Still your opinion. We can do all kinds of **** without being bound to treaties. The UN is not necessary for America to thrive, nor is it necessary for us to have relations with other countries.
Click to expand...

But it is irrelevant that it was negotiated at the UN! The UN is not the arbiter of the treaty! The UN is not an actor! The UN is a collection of recognized countries, the US chose to engage in that policy objective and the UN provided an excellent vehicle to do so. How is that so awful? How does it cost more than its worth? What operating costs are you talking about? Also of course you have a say, you have a say via the representatives and executive who craft policy and pick envoys. Also participation in the UN is quite important to US legitimacy and global standing, which is really rather important.
 
Sherman123 said:
But it is irrelevant that it was negotiated at the UN! The UN is not the arbiter of the treaty!
Click to expand...
You can't be serious. The conference was held in Havana Cuba in 1947 by the UN. It is a UN treaty. Research it. In fact, you need to do a lot of research on what the UN actually is, and what it does.
 
Lokiate said:
You can't be serious. The conference was held in Havana Cuba in 1947 by the UN. It is a UN treaty. Research it. In fact, you need to do a lot of research on what the UN actually is, and what it does.
Click to expand...

For the love of god, the UN isn't an actor, it is a mechanism. The UN doesn't bind the treaty together, the US and the member parties do.
 
mac said:
No.

Enlisted men and women signing up are enlisting. Officers are Commissioned. If you are going to speak from a position of authority on military matters you should A) know what you are talking about and B) try it on someone that hasn't served in the military.

He "could have received a bye"? You mean like his father that got 7 "byes"? The National Guard is reserves.
Click to expand...

Or Mitt Romney, who fought the Vietnam War by patrolling the dangerous streets of Paris asking people if they wanted to be Mormons.
 
The CIA started this whole Syria conflict. Can no one reign in this out of control war machine?

I was disappointed Paul endorsed Romney when he bowed out of the race.

How can someone speaking out against the military industrial complex, do that?

Does that mean Paul was stage playing the whole time ...?

I think the next candidate must go farther than reduce the Pentagon by half but also promise to shut down the CIA. The criminal CIA represents a government within a government and usurps power from the lawmakers and hijacks the press/ silences dissent/ and disrupts legal demonstrations, in short the whole process.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
January 20, 2009 was the date the leftist anti-war movement went silent. That's why President Obama has a free hand to wage unrestricted drone war against civilians in Pakistan, Somalia and Kenya. He's even building new drone bases in the Indian Ocean so he can reach out and touch sleeping villagers any where in the vicinity of the Indian Ocean. Obama doesn't take prisoners. He kills them dead along with their families and anyone else who happens by. He even launches drone strikes against people who he doesn't identify. If they make the wrong move he kills them dead.

Now President Obama has built up US forces around Iran in order to intimidate that country. He's goig to get America into another war. That's a very foolish thing to do.
Click to expand...

Bull****. If a president with an "R" by his name did it you would be showering him with praises.
 
Kane said:
The CIA started this whole Syria conflict. Can no one reign in this out of control war machine?

I was disappointed Paul endorsed Romney when he bowed out of the race.

How can someone speaking out against the military industrial complex, do that?

Does that mean Paul was stage playing the whole time ...?

I think the next candidate must go farther than reduce the Pentagon by half but also promise to shut down the CIA. The criminal CIA represents a government within a government and usurps power from the lawmakers and hijacks the press/ silences dissent/ and disrupts legal demonstrations, in short the whole process.
Click to expand...

You have some verifiable, inside info you would like to share with the class?
 
Captain America said:
Bull****. If a president with an "R" by his name did it you would be showering him with praises.
Click to expand...

Compose yourself. The conclusion expressed in your post is interesting. But naked conclusions are not persuasive if they aren't backed up by articulation of the rationale for the conclusion.

Collect your thoughts and post the reasons why you arrived at the conclusion expressed in your post.

In my opinion your conclusion is probably mistaken because it is likely that your fundamental premise about me is erroneous. In any event you have my attention and this is an issue I am prepared to discuss at length.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom