641–650 of 989 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots and lots of states were founded by terrorists. Like, my state (Ireland) was founded by a bunch of them. Our longest standing leader (DeValera) was involved in the 1916 rising and was only not executed because he was a US citizen and the Brits wanted the US to join WW1. Which is to say, that many many states have been founded by terrorists/freedom fighters. That's the norm, not the exception. Like, from the persp…
I’m using the word “terrorism” in exactly the way it should be used. Ireland was founded by people fighting for liberty. South Africa the same. The Israeli founders were terrorists. They used terror to ethnically cleanse the lands of its indigenous population. Anybody that supports this or tries to draw false parallels with genuine liberation movements is disgusting for obvious reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The UN was founded in the shadow of WWII to prevent further global conflicts. It also established a global standard for human rights and to provide a forum to uphold international law. It has also taken on roles to provide development and humanitarian assistance. Whether the UN works or not is largely dependent upon whether the five powers that granted themselves veto power (the P5: the US, the UK, France, China, and…
> Whether the UN works or not is largely dependent upon whether the five powers that granted themselves veto power (the P5: the US, the UK, France, China, and Russia) allow it to work. They are largely the source of its funding. The US is responsible for more than 25% of the UN's funding and is ~5-6x more than other members of the Security Council [1]. This is disproportionate to its obligations or its population. >…
Fact. Another fact: this is a rounding error for the US government's budget. The total spend is under $15b. Government spending has been $5t to $7.5t in the last decade. Why is this particular spending line item of such interest to you? Do you truly see zero value derived from investment in the UN? Is that perhaps because you require some benefit to Americans from the investment? About 2/3rds of UN spending is on development and humanitarian assistance. Is helping the rest of the world raise the standard of living a laudable goal for the richest country in the world to contribute to or not, in your eyes?
> Countries are not friends. They are allies with shared interests. That means each country has to derive value from the alliances it participates in. These alliances are strategic. If the alliance does not bring value, the country could and should divest from them. These are foundational principles of statecraft.
Perhaps one root difference in belief is that I don't believe the UN is an alliance, and you do. It is a forum for countries that belong to different alliances to have a forum to talk to each other. It also is a forum to build temporary alliances for military intervention (e.g., Iraq War I) across such boundaries. The US failed miserably at building such a consenus for Iraq War II and has been
> If you believe the world is anything other than that then either you have been fooled by the super comfortable existence insulating you from most shocks that the US has provided, or you wish the world was like this.
Thank you. I understand your zero-sum argument and realpolitik in general, both from an academic and personal perspective. I grew up in a third-world country, so - perhaps, unlike you - I'm intimately familiar with the impact of Great Power games in the post-Cold War era. You are unfortunately correct; I wish that the US (my home for several decades now) tried harder to move away from such thinking and utilized the UN for more win-win scenarios, but we're moving away from such liberal thinking, and so my wish will probably remain unfulfilled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An entire set of countries actually - no division between intelligence. It was a global cultural phenomenon.
to be fair, there was lots of resistance within those countries, but not enough to overcome the Guys With Guns(tm).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're getting ready to bomb Iran's UNESCO sites. They did bomb several UNESCO sites in Yugoslavia and other places while they left. Their boy Grossi also told the whole world that there is a big target on a UNESCO site a short while back.
Which site in Yugoslavia did they bomb?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's not that it's hard to leave gaza. it's just nobody willing to accept gazans. and trumps plan that talks about voluntary migration out of gaza is been described as genocide and ethnic cleansing (btw, 75% of them actually registered as refugees by unrwa for past many decades) i never saw anybody been against migration of population out of war zone to safety. in case of ukrainian refugees it was widely discussed th…
I don't know what's involved, but if no one is willing to accept Gazans then it seems like that might be a practical difficulty?
1984: U.S. withdraws. 2003: U.S. rejoins. 2011: U.S. stops paying dues after Palestine joins. 2017: U.S. announces withdrawal (effective end of 2018). 2023: U.S. rejoins, pledges to repay dues. 2025: U.S announces withdrawal Seems to be a revolving door
Makes me wonder if officials at UNESCO even cares about the decision. "Oh that again?" Probably already used to this.
She only gets reinstated again for the purpose of making another dramatic exit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are they supposed to do here exactly?
I do not know exactly, since I do not work there. Those in charge and empowered have a duty to find a way out and protect their people (forgiveness and peace). As for me, I’m just an ordinary person, believing that all lives matter worldwide. And if many innocents continue to die meaninglessly, I consider their governments incompetent for the job. Are you suggesting that they (just to clarify, I’m referring to the go…
Ok so how do you know that they are not doing enough?
>Are you suggesting that they are competent and that all the other governments are to blame?
I'm suggesting it's not productive to blame the people starving in a concentration camp for not doing enough to find food.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s wild to question numbers, but not question the country preventing independent verification of those numbers. You can be skeptical of the gaza MoH all you want, but unless you’re demanding independent verification you’re just enabling what we have to assume is a genocide.
Actual independent verification would be great. Maybe even a coalition of peacekeepers to go in and control Gaza. Hamas could maybe even give up the rest of the hostages. > have to assume is a genocide. ??? Guilty until proven innocent? In what world?
Guilty implies conviction & punishment. You don’t punish people who’ve not been proven guilty (like say idk palestinians being punished for hamas’ actions)
What I’m saying is if there is the credible possibility of genocide (which there is), then inaction is complacency. Stop the violence, asses if there has been genocide, prevent any further.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clinton did a lot more than that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Bill_Cl... He actually reduced spending, improved efficiency and in general streamlined the system. But weirdly, no republican (or most other people, really) ever mentions this actually effective approach, possibly because it would completely undermine the myth of republican "fiscal conservatism" But this part here I think gets to…
Democrats and Republicans alike all agree that Clinton became much more conservative in his second term. Nobody acknowledges it because it paled in comparison to the circus that was his impeachment trial.