Iran calls to destroy Israel, solves the "who's gonna hit Iran's nukes" question.

[Orwell]

I must say it's quite interesting for you to effortlessly pooh-pooh any significance behind one leader's actions, and latch so monomaniacally onto the significance of another leader's actions.

How you maintain your double standards without your head exploding is a mystery to me, the likes of which I've not seen since Mr. Manifesto vanished.

Ok, if you wanna repeat the Iraq fiasco, go ahead, be my guest.

You must be getting me confused with someone else, I am typically pretty fair on how I think about certain politicians... See, I happen to think Dubya is an incompetent s.o.b. But, for the record, I also happen to think that Iran's president is an even dumber s.o.b....
By the way, I hold the US to different standards than I hold Iran. Yeah, it might seem unfair, but you're the biggest guy on the block, you're rich and you're supposed to be a democratic country.

 

[Jocko]

Ok, if you wanna repeat the Iraq fiasco, go ahead, be my guest.

You must be getting me confused with someone else, I am typically pretty fair on how I think about certain politicians... See, I happen to think Dubya is an incompetent s.o.b. But, for the record, I also happen to think that Iran's president is an even dumber s.o.b....
By the way, I hold the US to different standards than I hold Iran. Yeah, it might seem unfair, but you're the biggest guy on the block, you're rich and you're supposed to be a democratic country.

Holding different standards while declaring a love of justice is precisely the reason that well-meaning but willfully ignorant countries such as your own have made the UN such a joke.

Too much emphasis on the N, not enough on the U.

 

[Mycroft]

Pollyannaish, eh? Well, Mycroft, if the US bombs Iran right now, when no one seems to know much about Iran's nuke capability, could not only be a complete failure, but it could also consolidate the power of the extremists, making sure that moderate elements inside Iran will never get a shot at changing things.

It's not an either/or choice between taking a threat seriously and bombing Iran. That's what's called a false dichotomy, and is considered to be a logical fallacy.

It's quite possible to take a threat seriously, as it should be, yet find a solution other than bombing Iran.

 

[Orwell]

It's not an either/or choice between taking a threat seriously and bombing Iran. That's what's called a false dichotomy, and is considered to be a logical fallacy.

It's quite possible to take a threat seriously, as it should be, yet find a solution other than bombing Iran.

Oh I completely agree on that! It's just that, in the context of the present thread, the bombing scenario was mentioned as the main possibility.

I have no problem with official protests and complaints regarding Mushareef's declarations. They're more than deserved, the guy was out of line. Even other Iranians seem to think so.

 

[Orwell]

Holding different standards while declaring a love of justice is precisely the reason that well-meaning but willfully ignorant countries such as your own have made the UN such a joke.

Too much emphasis on the N, not enough on the U.

So I should expect as much of the US of A as I expect from, oh, I dunno, Sudan, Iran or Fidji? Ok.

My country didn't turn the UN into a joke, bud. We're a bit too small to have that kind of power. But yours significantly contributed to make the UN ineffective by consistently ignoring it and undermining it whenever the UN didn't go along with the US gov.

See, I don't know if you know, but you shouldn't expect an organisation made up of so many different countries to always agree with you. It's the United Nations, not the United US lackeys.

 

[Mycroft]

True, but in the context of the present thread, the bombing scenario was mentioned as the main possibility.

Well, you don't argue against bombing by making light of a very real threat. If you don't like bombing you just say so and suggest an alternative.

 

[Orwell]

I think I suggested keeping cool, waiting and seeing, and see if there's something that can be negotiated a few posts ago.

 

[Orwell]

Besides the official protests and embargoes that are already going on, that is...

 

[Jocko]

So I should expect as much of the US of A as I expect from, oh, I dunno, Sudan, Iran or Fidji? Ok.

My country didn't turn the UN into a joke, bud. We're a bit too small to have that kind of power. But yours significantly contributed to make the UN ineffective by consistently ignoring it and undermining it whenever the UN didn't go along with the US gov.

Surely a truly United Nations would be able to stand up effectively to a hegemony like the US, couldn't it?

If it can't, then what possible use could it be? Actually, it's not an issue of "can't," it's an issue of "won't," such as the spoiled child of privilege represented by the Canadian national identity. Not that you're alone in this; much of old Europe is in the same boat. And look who's the first ones to start sweating about Iranian nukes? Why, the ineffectual Europeans. The only reason Canada's not in the same boat is because of geography, not philosophy.

See, I don't know if you know, but you shouldn't expect an organisation made up of so many different countries to always agree with you. It's the United Nations, not the United US lackeys.

Uh-huh. And which countries on the security council voted in favor of UNR 1441? And how many of them stood up to enforce it?

You're somebody's lackies, to be sure, but not ours.

 

[Orwell]

Yes, Jocko, I know you despise everything not american in general, and Canada in particular. Yawn...

 

[Jocko]

Yes, Jocko, I know you despise everything not american in general, and Canada in particular. Yawn...

Why don't you pass a strongly-worded resolution after you sleep on it for a few months? That'll set me straight.

 

[Kerberos]

Very true - although to put things in perspective, the total assessed and voluntary contributions of the United States to the UN ($3 billion) exceeded the UN's entire budget for the year in question. Moreover, I doubt the evaluation included forgoing the potential annual tax revenue on a billion dollars' worth of Manhattan real estate.

I also doubt the evaluation included the gains from having the employees of the UN spending much of their salary is the US, due to working and living there.

 

[ceo_esq]

I also doubt the evaluation included the gains from having the employees of the UN spending much of their salary is the US, due to working and living there.

A fair point, and one would also need to consider the diplomatic mission staff (although the number of year-year-round mission staff, I believe, is far smaller than the number of UN personnel in the United States).

However, there are only about 5,000 UN employees in the New York area these days. Average salaries are lower than the private sector or national civil service. A number of these employees do not pay U.S. taxes, thanks solely to their UN status. And of course some of them, regardless of nationality, would be employed in the United States even if they did not work for the UN. These people inject some money into the local economy, to be sure, but gains specifically from UN employee spending are, in my view, probably modest.

I would never suggest, on the other hand, that some real benefits do not flow to the United States from the presence of UN Headquarters in New York.

 

[Kerberos]

A fair point, and one would also need to consider the diplomatic mission staff (although the number of year-year-round mission staff, I believe, is far smaller than the number of UN personnel in the United States).

However, there are only about 5,000 UN employees in the New York area these days. Average salaries are lower than the private sector or national civil service. A number of these employees do not pay U.S. taxes, thanks solely to their UN status. And of course some of them, regardless of nationality, would be employed in the United States even if they did not work for the UN. These people inject some money into the local economy, to be sure, but gains specifically from UN employee spending are, in my view, probably modest.

I would never suggest, on the other hand, that some real benefits do not flow to the United States from the presence of UN Headquarters in New York.

You might be right, I was guessing that it was significant, because I know that the presence of the EU institutions signicantly improve the direct cost/benefit equation for Belgium and Luxembourg. EU employees earn more than their counterparts in the civil service, and I assumed the same was true for UN employees.

 

[Orwell]

Why don't you pass a strongly-worded resolution after you sleep on it for a few months? That'll set me straight.

Not before you invade another country using a bunch of half-backed justifications and lies.

[sarcasm]Mission accomplished![/sarcasm]

When are you leaving Iraq, exactly?

 

[Jocko]

When are you leaving Iraq, exactly?

Long before the UN would have lifted a finger, you can rest assured of that. Back to sleep with you, Orwell, and may you dream of your one-world utopia where bad people don't exist.

 

[Orwell]

Long before the UN would have lifted a finger, you can rest assured of that. Back to sleep with you, Orwell, and may you dream of your one-world utopia where bad people don't exist.

Too bad that's not at all what I have been saying, eh?

But don't worry, I'm quite aware that a-holes exist, Jocko! How could I forget? You keep reminding me of it!

 

[Jocko]

Too bad that's not at all what I have been saying, eh?

But don't worry, I'm quite aware that a-holes exist, Jocko! How could I forget? You keep reminding me of it!

A roomful of dithering saints may well need an "a-hole" when confronted with a problem they lack the resolve to address. Can't you be content with being a dithering saint?

 

[merphie]

A roomful of dithering saints may well need an "a-hole" when confronted with a problem they lack the resolve to address. Can't you be content with being a dithering saint?

I'm surprised he hasn't thrown out more insults toward you and claim that you don't know what you are talking about because you don't agree with his opinion.

 

[Orwell]

I'm surprised he hasn't thrown out more insults toward you and claim that you don't know what you are talking about because you don't agree with his opinion.

But merphie, I didn't insult you because I don't agree with you! I insulted you because all you have said so far in this thread was either irrelevant or trivial.

See, there's quite a lot of people I don't agree with on this forum (that's why it's fun posting here), and I haven't intentionally insulted them.

Usually, I only insult people who deserve it. And you, merphie, deserved it! And your whinging about it to jocko doesn't improve your case.