USA Butting into China's Business Again!

[IAMX 3,055]

Ah okay. So basically because you disclaimed it then you are free to use it. Yet continue to accuse others of ignorantly using nametags.

You may want to read up on the concept of a hypocrite.

Nope. Try reading it again until you figure it out. Obviously your reading comprehension skills are well below average.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

http://www.expatgroups.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=558

[Heracles 417]

http://www.expatgroups.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=558

Wow you losers have two forums to post in..

[IAMX 3,055]

http://www.expatgroups.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=558

Wow you losers have two forums to post in..

Make sure to tell them your postcount. Your ePenus will grow 5 inches.

[HAL 9000 96]

http://www.expatgroups.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=558

Wow you losers have two forums to post in..

And yet you proudly do so in one of them.

[IAMX 3,055]

http://www.expatgroups.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=558

Wow you losers have two forums to post in..

And yet you proudly do so in one of them.

He also went through the forum to figure out how to see everyone's postcount.

I'm pretty sure that means he's more nerdy than the rest of us. Just typically conservative and in the closet until he's dragged out kicking and screaming.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Oh, right, conservatives aren't much into the getting along thing. May as well bomb everyone you disagree with. Wait, who does that sound like? Oh yeah! What we call "terrorists"! How about that? So we're not so different after all.

Interesting considering you just wrote this.

It's like this -- people call you left or right so they can put you in a group and disagree with you as a whole. Everyone's guilty of it. However, when it comes down to it I do find it funny how many latch onto their liberal or conservative nametag and often go with them just because they think somewhat alike. I bet they disagree in many areas too. However, politicians (namely divisive conservative politicians who love conflict rather than mending bridges) have turned this thing not into an American system, but a conservative or liberal one, kinda like sports teams where people only root for their team or someone playing against the team they hate. It's why it will get much worse until people wise up.

But wait... what was that about the #6 rules of posting... Did you just show up in this thread to attack someone, or did I miss something here?

So basically because you defined these rules as my posting MO, then you are free to use them yourself?

You may want to read up on the concept of a hypocrite.

[IAMX 3,055]

Oh, right, conservatives aren't much into the getting along thing. May as well bomb everyone you disagree with. Wait, who does that sound like? Oh yeah! What we call "terrorists"! How about that? So we're not so different after all.

Interesting considering you just wrote this.

It's like this -- people call you left or right so they can put you in a group and disagree with you as a whole. Everyone's guilty of it. However, when it comes down to it I do find it funny how many latch onto their liberal or conservative nametag and often go with them just because they think somewhat alike. I bet they disagree in many areas too. However, politicians (namely divisive conservative politicians who love conflict rather than mending bridges) have turned this thing not into an American system, but a conservative or liberal one, kinda like sports teams where people only root for their team or someone playing against the team they hate. It's why it will get much worse until people wise up.

But wait... what was that about the #6 rules of posting... Did you just show up in this thread to attack someone, or did I miss something here?

So basically because you defined these rules as my posting MO, then you are free to use them yourself?

You may want to read up on the concept of a hypocrite.

If your name is Aficionado you're obviously not a hypocrite. You can just label everyone else one. ** drinking the kool-aid, how about snorting it?

[alienlovechild 75]

It also ensures cooperation is necessary to get along with the entire world.

Oh, right, conservatives aren't much into the getting along thing. May as well bomb everyone you disagree with. Wait, who does that sound like? Oh yeah! What we call "terrorists"! How about that? So we're not so different after all.

List of UN achievements for peace in the last 63 years?

You got a lot more sympathy and understanding for terrorists than conservatives. You must have been overjoyed after the recent Islamabad hotel bombing.

So if cops shoot criminals, cops=criminals?

If cops are shooting criminals for stealing bread, yes. See, unlike you I don't go by a simplistic and overly religious-like mindset about everything. The U.N. is pretty impotent on enforcing things because countries vary as to how far they let the U.N. dictate things. The U.S. doesn't allow it at all. So of course if you want to be above everyone else rather than a part of an even-handed solution, you're going to find yourself with less people who want to deal with you.

This is not just a foreign policy view, but a sociological one altogether.

Of course, I love the idiot statement about Islamabad. I bet you were salivating at 9/11 to attack any Arab in sight.

Your list of UN achievements for peace was pretty short.

I tried to figure out where there was a hint of religion in my post. You have a lot in common with devout Catholics who see images Jesus or the Virgin Mary on potato chips on the sides of buildings. You see the images of religion in nearly every post.

Your view of the UN, and foreign policy with sociology (?) throw in good measure, that's the conventional answer. The balance of world power rests in the relationships in bilateral and multilateral agreements which have very little do with your favorite chatting club, the UN.

You should happy with the Islamabad attacks. It's a grassroots answer to U.S. imperialism. I wasn't happy about 9/11 but remember Afghans aren't Arabs and the invasion of Iraq rested on WMDs not on 9/11.

[Peikko 1,575]

Do you think the UN should never have been created? Or do you simply think the UN isn't doing the things that you want it to do now so it was useful and has now become redundant?

Are you also one of these people who feels that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a pointless Declaration as the bible gives everyone all the rights they would ever need? Or do you feel that the Human Rights declaration can exist even if the UN does not?

[IAMX 3,055]

I wasn't happy about 9/11 but remember Afghans aren't Arabs and the invasion of Iraq rested on WMDs not on 9/11.

Nah, you were happy with 9/11.

And as mentioned earlier, because the U.S. isn't being the moral leader (just the hypocritical one) in not allowing the U.N. to have any power or say-so, the expectations is other countries should? This is why the U.N. is largely powerless and the accomplishments are few to zero. Not exactly surprising.

[alienlovechild 75]

Do you think the UN should never have been created? Or do you simply think the UN isn't doing the things that you want it to do now so it was useful and has now become redundant?

The UN is largely ineffective as more and more tiny nations with insignificant GDPs have an equal vote (not the security council) with the big powers. A lot of countries still aren't democratic but claim that they should vote on measures. Lastly, only a handful of nations have the ability to militarily power project troops to far off lands so it's the few having to the work for the many. What all this boils down to is how UN members can vote to use American money and troops in the UN agenda. There aren't too examples of when a great power gives up control of it's resources for the whims of other nations.

Are you also one of these people who feels that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a pointless Declaration as the bible gives everyone all the rights they would ever need? Or do you feel that the Human Rights declaration can exist even if the UN does not?

I never really heard that declaration means much and hasn't played much of a role in world affairs. National sovereignity and local legal systems are far more powerful than a largely UN unknown declaration. In 28 years of my interest in foreign policy, you're the first person I've heard bring up the declaration.

[Peikko 1,575]

Does that translate to mean you wish the UN hadn't been created, or that it has largely outlived its usefulness? Do you even know what the aim of the UN was when it was created?

From your response, I can only surmise that you don't really know much about what the UN does, nor what the Declaration of Human Rights is for and I am wondering if you know anything about world politics outside of a very narrow "if it's good for America it's good for everyone perspective"? Human rights issues are pretty much central to foreign policy so I am not quite sure how you have managed to remain ignorant of it for so long.

[alienlovechild 75]

Does that translate to mean you wish the UN hadn't been created, or that it has largely outlived its usefulness? Do you even know what the aim of the UN was when it was created?

You ask a lot of questions and ignore most of what I wrote but that the usual method here. It doesn't bother me the UN was created and it's pretty useless at the moment but who knows in the future. I'd speculate the UN was supposed to prevent war as the defunct League of Nations tried and failed at.

From your response, I can only surmise that you don't really know much about what the UN does, nor what the Declaration of Human Rights is for and I am wondering if you know anything about world politics outside of a very narrow "if it's good for America it's good for everyone perspective"? Human rights issues are pretty much central to foreign policy so I am not quite sure how you have managed to remain ignorant of it for so long.

Since you can't do much on this topic than your standard insults it leads me to believe you don't know much about the UN or foreign policy. You could least quote me correctly or summarize my pov with some degree of accuracy. What's good for America may not be in the national interest of all nations or vice versa. That's true of all nations.

Feel free to explain how UN Declaration of Human Rights has been more influential than say the U.S. Consitution, the Declaration of the Rights of Man, the Magna Carta, Roman law, English custom law . . . ? Show us your depth of knowledge because no one more than your humble servant is such need of a personal tutor. This is turning into an episode of Super Nanny.

Human rights haven't been central to foreign policy and mounds of bodies in Bosnia, Rwanda, N. Korea, Sudan, West Africa, Congo, Cambodia . . . say your wrong in believing the world will react to wholesale slaughter with military intervention to uphold human rights provisions in a document every nation signed.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

Greaaaaaat

There goes out prime lender and there goes our economy

I'm going back to the third world