OT- The U.N., the U.S. Army, and me

[PeterNZer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hmmm, you may want to rethink that. Take from the rich and give to the poor is classic bleeding heart politics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I seem to remember there was was this guy who was nailed to a tree for expousing this 'bleeding heart politics'.

I think quite a few people thought he was pretty neat guy. Never knew he was a bleeding heart liberal, guess he must of been wrong then!

PeterNZ

[82nd Airborne]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PeterNZer:

I seem to remember there was was this guy who was nailed to a tree for expousing this 'bleeding heart politics'.

I think quite a few people thought he was pretty neat guy. Never knew he was a bleeding heart liberal, guess he must of been wrong then!

PeterNZ<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good one Peter

------------------

What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

[Guest barrold713]

I am sort of glad this thread has waddled into the economic sovereignty issues since this is the more relevant at present when considering the UN.

There are a number of economic fallacies floating around in here, along with a fair sprinkling of class warfare which is understandably easy to fall into but hardly useful.

Liberalism as classically defined is ill-suited to label the type of person hiding behind that tag. They are in truth just various shades of socialists and the idea of redistribution of wealth is directly from Marx. It presupposes that wealth is a zero sum gain in that if I get a dollar someone else necessarily must lose a dollar. The truth is that wealth is created and grown...the pie gets larger and its a cliche but it fits, a rising tide lifts all boats. The exception of course would be boats whose captains put holes in their hulls. Conscriptive taxes and excessive regulation are an 800 pound gorilla whose purpose is to stifle entreprenuers like Steve and Charles. If CM is the crazy huge financial success we all should hope it becomes, and (in the words of Democrats) are then part of Life's Lottery Winners, someone explain to me how the government deserves 50% of the money that comes in from their efforts. It might be so that they decide that CM2 is not worth the effort of two years of their life for so small a return on their investment. If they are allowed to keep a greater portion of the money they generated (turning thoughts in fertile brains into a tangible product of value to others), perhaps they can hire other programmers (job creation) who will also pay taxes (increased revenue and trickle down effect), and CM2 will be out sooner, and the eye candy and great features we all would like to see (and would pay for the fun of using their product) could be in the final version.

Translating this example into the environmental debate, it is only the rich countries that can afford the cost of cleaning up and pollution prevention. This stuff is expensive and the only way to ensure that the messes are cleaned up is to ensure sufficient free market entreprenuership exists to foster the creation and growth of wealth. Capital creates jobs, jobs lift people from poverty, people out of poverty live better, and spend their money to improve their lifes. When companies make large profits, part of this money can be put much more easily into non-profit producing areas which would include the expensive area of environmental remediation and pollution prevention.

Companies losing money are less like to be worried about cleaning up or installing newer clean technology. Government run entities are likely to be the worst of all and the example of the formerly Communist Bloc countries should be the glaring example. Only where companies are allowed to grow rich is the emphasis on pollution a priority.

Oh yea...going into the Army is still a good thing...you'll gain things that may not be appreciated for a number of years but they will be there. yada yada

------------------

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote"

- Ben Franklin

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by barrold713:

Liberalism as classically defined is ill-suited to label the type of person hiding behind that tag. They are in truth just various shades of socialists and the idea of redistribution of wealth is directly from Marx. It presupposes that wealth is a zero sum gain in that if I get a dollar someone else necessarily must lose a dollar. The truth is that wealth is created and grown...the pie gets larger and its a cliche but it fits, a rising tide lifts all boats<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Er, I meant to actually say something here

Anyway - you say tomayto, I say tomahto. If you wanna call me a socialist, that's fine. Modern usage has diluted the language quite a bit anyway, and I'm just as happy being labeled one thing rather than the other. I've voted for democrats, republicans, greens, socialists, and hey, if the Know-nothings were still around I might swing a vote their way. I believe I vote my conscience rather than along party lines.

As for redistribution of wealth coming from Marx, I strongly disagree. He had a lot of original ideas, but that sure wasn't one of them. He came up with the Marxist form of redistribution of wealth, which, after all, makes sense, being that he was Marx.

Nor do I agree that all liberals/socialists/lousy pinko commie bastards/whatever else you want to call me believe that the economy is a zero sum game. I certainly do not. I do, however, believe that you have to spend money to make money, and that applies to people as well. As I wrote in a previous post, I believe that if people are below a certain economic/educational threshold, they don't have a chance of succeeding in the American sense of the word. If you raise these people above that threshold (which takes money), they will earn the money back.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 09-08-2000).]

[sneaky]

PeterNzer, 82nd,

"Hmmm, you may want to rethink that. Take from the rich and give to the poor is classic bleeding heart politics."

Contrary to popular opinion, the man nailed to the tree did not espouse TAKING from anyone. He did however espouse GIVING to the poor. TAKING would be stealing and I seemed to remember His Father having a rule or 10 about those kinds of things.

Sneaky

[82nd Airborne]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sneaky:

PeterNzer, 82nd,

Contrary to popular opinion, the man nailed to the tree did not espouse TAKING from anyone. He did however espouse GIVING to the poor.

Sneaky<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't mean to imply that TAKING, meant stealing. Just agree that He would be considered a bleeding heart liberal. And that is funny. Sort of.

Come on , full member or what??

------------------

What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

[ironcross]

i thought the original question was you wanted to join the army.Now i could be wrong but if youve got to have some sort of debate over if you think you should join because of un or us involvment in various conflicts,youve answered your own question i/e no.

The army isnt a debating or sewing circle you go where your told end of story.

If you dont like where your going to be sent fine go awol,however if you think you might not like fighting in certain countrys that your goverment or yes the united nations send you then stay at home

Id hate to think of some poor guy dying while you wrestle with your conscience over the validity of your orders.

If you join the army then you better get used to going to places you dont want to and putting up with it

[sneaky]

Yes, 82nd I'd give you a full member. But I can't control that...you certainly deserve it today!

Yeah I know you're chuckling. But the take from rich give to poor thing from Sherwood is not a good analogy to the guy on the tree. JMO.

Sneaky

[82nd Airborne]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ironcross:

Id hate to think of some poor guy dying while you wrestle with your conscience over the validity of your orders.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point! Just saw a episode of Tour of Duty on that very issue.

------------------

What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

[kunzler]

Sneaky, you took the words right out of my mouth. I do believe we should give to the poor. Voluntarily that is.

It seems that I have allowed myself to get sucked into a discussion of one of the two topics one should never enter into on a discussion board. And me without my fire retardant flame suit today.

To extricate myself and end my participation in this discussion (hopefully), I suppose I should say that I did not mean to attack anyone for their liberal viewpoint. I was trying to expose what I thought to be an extreme and not very well thought out position. Actually, two extreme positions. I am not against left or right leaning positions per se, just those that I perceive to be extreme and not well grounded.

[This message has been edited by kunzler (edited 09-08-2000).]

[82nd Airborne]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sneaky:

Yes, 82nd I'd give you a full member. But I can't control that...you certainly deserve it today!

Yeah I know you're chuckling. But the take from rich give to poor thing from Sherwood is not a good analogy to the guy on the tree. JMO.

Sneaky

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey thanks for the support Sneaky. I've reconsidered. The man on the tree for Prez, with Robin Hood as his running mate. Sorry Tarzan , your out. Of course Mr Hood will have to get a spin doctor for past indiscretions.

Let's see the Democrats or Republicans top them!

------------------

What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

[Guest barrold713]

I didn't call you or anyone else a name, I am just pointing out that since words mean things, liberals are not the free market open thinkers one might get the impression of when looking in the dictionary. The proper term would be socialist if someone advocates larger government control of industry, more power held in the state rather than the individual, and the confiscation of wealth in order to distribute it as they wish.

The idea of redistribution of wealth is from Marx in that he wrote "From those according to their means, to those according to need"

It is an idea that rightly belongs on the dust heap of history, but class warfare and the hatred of success that permeates many people all too easily keeps it an everpresent evil.

Another definition I heard of liberalism is that is is the motivation to do good with other people's money. I think that if people think there tax money is being used righteously, they shouldn't take deductions and just send the extra money into the governnment. Why would liberals keep from the government a single penny that might be used to feed a starving child, provide "free" healthcare, or "free" prescription drugs to seasoned citizens? Think of all the money the rich left has raised for Algore that could have bought health insurance for children. Barbara Striesand alone could make sure that no child in America goes without insurance, but she would rather let it mingle with the money provided by the chinese and get what accomplished from her donations. Does anyone think she or any of the hypocritical hollywood crowd doesn't itemize their political contributions on their tax forms? I would be curious to see how many deductions they take and ask why they don't pony up more of their fair share so that the children aren't starving by the millions, and suffering without medical attention just so they can greedily live in their big houses and expensive cars. That would be funny in my opinion.

BDH

------------------

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote"

- Ben Franklin

[Renaud]

I'd like to try and shed a little light on certain economic realities often overlooked in the quest for economic-equality-at-any-costs. Chupacabra comes to mind but this is relevent for anyone with input on the globalization/UN discussion of property rights (or the elimination thereof).

From the great Ludwig von Mises (www.mises.com):

'Now in the market economy this alleged dualism of two independent processes, that of production and that of distribution, does not exist. There is only one process going on. Goods are not first produced and then distributed. There is no such thing as an appropriation of portions out of a stock of ownerless goods.

The products come into existence as somebody's property. If one wants to distribute them, one must first confiscate them. It is certainly very easy for the governmental apparatus of compulsion and coercion to embark upon confiscation and expropriation. But this does not prove that a durable system of economic affairs can be built upon such confiscation and expropriation.'

Wildly OT yours,

Ren

[sneaky]

"Of course Mr Hood will have to get a spin doctor for past indiscretions."

No doubt! But since we, the electorate, usually don't care about VPs it should be an easy clean-up.

The real problem will be the Prez, and his moral absolutes. Can't fly today...some real spin will be needed there...

Sneaky (not meaning to delve into an even worse subject for discussion)

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Renaud:

'Now in the market economy this alleged dualism of two independent processes, that of production and that of distribution, does not exist. There is only one process going on. Goods are not first produced and then distributed. There is no such thing as an appropriation of portions out of a stock of ownerless goods. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't believe I ever claimed otherwise.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The products come into existence as somebody's property. If one wants to distribute them, one must first confiscate them. It is certainly very easy for the governmental apparatus of compulsion and coercion to embark upon confiscation and expropriation. But this does not prove that a durable system of economic affairs can be built upon such confiscation and expropriation.' <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It also does not disprove that such a system can be built. I'll point out that income tax, one of the most durable economic institutions going, is such a system of confiscation and expropriation.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by barrold713:

The idea of redistribution of wealth is from Marx in that he wrote "From those according to their means, to those according to need"

It is an idea that rightly belongs on the dust heap of history, but class warfare and the hatred of success that permeates many people all too easily keeps it an everpresent evil.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, I dispute that the idea of redistribution of wealth originated with Marx. Marx's original idea was a state based upon, among other things, redistribution of wealth. The redistribution of wealth is an institution which has been going on for centuries, if not since the beginning of human history, in smaller and more informal forms.

I'm also not sure why you're bringing up this bit about class warfare, or hatred of success. If the revolution ever comes, I'd be one of the first against the wall. Believe me, in most ways I'm much closer to being a bloody-handed assassin of the workers than to the glorious modern proletariat. I also consider myself at least moderately successful, and in my mind, deservedly so. Through a combination of good fortune and hard work, I have an enjoyable life, I'm excited about my future, and I look forward to further success. Where I think we differ is that you see redistribution of wealth as "an everpresent evil," and I see it as laudable, a moral responsibility of the wealthy, and an eventual economic necessity. I am justifiably proud of my own success, and if I can help others attain a similar success, I'll do so by whatever means are available to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Another definition I heard of liberalism is that is is the motivation to do good with other people's money. I think that if people think there tax money is being used righteously, they shouldn't take deductions and just send the extra money into the governnment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you advocating the abolition of taxes?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Think of all the money the rich left has raised for Algore that could have bought health insurance for children. Barbara Striesand alone could make sure that no child in America goes without insurance, but she would rather let it mingle with the money provided by the chinese and get what accomplished from her donations. Does anyone think she or any of the hypocritical hollywood crowd doesn't itemize their political contributions on their tax forms? I would be curious to see how many deductions they take and ask why they don't pony up more of their fair share so that the children aren't starving by the millions, and suffering without medical attention just so they can greedily live in their big houses and expensive cars. That would be funny in my opinion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're opening up a whole 'nother kettle of fish there. What does campaign financing have to do with my arguments? I don't believe I've stated anywhere that I agree with or support the democratic party 100%, no matter what. As I said, I've voted for candidates from just about every party out there. I'm personally very skeptical and wary of huge fundraisers and corporate contributions on all sides, or rather, I'm skeptical of the influences and backroom deal-making this entails, but it's seemingly what all parties have to do to raise money, so, so be it.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Guest LtCo.05]

After reading many of the responses from politics to religion, I'd like to bring up some sobering issues. I do commend anyone who is willing to make the sacrifices necessary to defend our country. I'm an active duty Lt Col in the USAF and hopefully can speak with some credibility. The military these days is facing many difficult issues from pay and ops tempo to serious training and leadership shortfalls. Only an informed president and congress can fix this. If they don't or won't, vote them out.

A commitment one takes upon themselves when accepting the oath of office must be unwaivering. We all have a specific purpose within the team we volunteered to join. Without total commitment by all to the objectives given people can, and have died. We can question all we want prior to doing the mission, but when all the discussions are over and the order is givin, we go! I know I have had numerous disagreements with my superiors; some won, many others lost, but all done with the utmost respect for the military system. I'll be ending my career within the next 18 months and have enjoyed almost every moment. I've been a commander as well as a staff officer (currently at HQ AF) and have always said that I would go when it is no longer fun!!. Yes, work, no matter what you do should be fun or you ought to find something else to do. In todays highly political environment it is becoming no longer fun. Having served all over the world I would not have changed a thing up to this point.

I know this is a bit long, but so must be a soldier, sailor, airman or marines commitment to their country. There's no other place in the world I rather live or any other country worth dying for.......

Enjoy the army, it will be what you, the future, make it!!

BTW, my son is an SrA in the Air National Guard just nominated as his bases Airman of the Year , my father a marine WWII vet and my gradfather a WWI vet.....the tradition live on!!

[82nd Airborne]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LtCo.05:

Without total commitment by all to the objectives given people can, and have died. We can question all we want prior to doing the mission, but when all the discussions are over and the order is givin, we go!

.

There's no other place in the world I rather live or any other country worth dying for.......

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great post. Have to disagree with the last part (only country worth dying for) but none the less good advice for MJ.

Regards

------------------

What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

[Turret Ring]

It's been my experience; [A Cold War Warrior from 1968 to 1975 in Vietnam (were it was anything but cold) and in NATO.... As well as a BA in History with 20 years of teaching while trying very hard to stay current in world politics.] that has brought me to the conclusion that the USA doesn't do anything that it doesn't at least believe is in it's own best interest. When it comes to geopolitical manipulation of one nationstate by another, or a group of others.......both or all factions could be manipulating eachother. And sometimes everyone gets what they are after. My own opinion is that we manipulate the UN and other nations far more than they us. Sure... there are exceptions to this... However, we are the toughest dog in the pack because we pay the lion's share of the bills (even when we don't stay current with the payments.)

Oh. By the way. Be careful young man. If your going into the military looking for the same kinds of fulfillment or rewards you get from studying about military history or from playing war games you may be a bit disappointed. While serving your country and living the soldiers life does have it's share of rewards.....it's not at all as romantic as it's made to seem by some.

------------------

"Then we shall fight in the shade." (Greek general's comment upon being told that the Persian archers could blot-out the sun with their arrows.)

[This message has been edited by Turret Ring (edited 09-08-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Turret Ring (edited 09-08-2000).]

[82nd Airborne]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Turret Ring:

It's been my experience; [A Cold War Warrior from 1968 to 1975 in Vietnam (were it was anything but cold) and in NATO.... As well as a BA in History with 20 years of teaching while trying very hard to stay current in world politics.] that has brought me to the conclusion that the USA doesn't do anything that it doesn't at least believe is in it's own best interest. When it comes to geopolitical manipulation of one nationstate by another, or a group of others.......both or all factions could be manipulating eachother. And sometimes everyone gets what they are after. My own opinion is that we manipulate the UN and other nations far more than they us. Sure... there are exceptions to this... However, we are the toughest dog in the pack because we pay the lion's share of the bills (even when we don't stay current with the payments.)

Oh. By the way. Be careful young man. If your going into the military looking for the same kinds of fulfillment or rewards you get from studying about military history or from playing war games you may be a bit disappointed. While serving your country and living the soldiers life does have it's share of rewards.....it's not at all as romantic as it's made to seem by some.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

sage

'nuff said

------------------

What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

[BasilD]

I'd be curious to hear people's guesses as to which leaders/nations are responsible for the following statements.

#1: "One answer to this problem would be to say: we should not ask the UN to do what it is not equipped to do. Our answer should be: let us equip the UN to do what we ask. We need better machinery to ensure UN peacekeepers can be rapidly deployed, with the right training and equipment, the ability to project credible force, and missions well-defined by a well functioning headquarters. To meet this challenge, we must also more effectively deploy civilian police to UN missions."

#2: "We need UN forces composed of units appropriate for more robust peacekeeping that can be inserted quickly, rather than whatever the Secretary-General's staff has been able to gather from reluctant member states. This means a new contract between the UN and its members. We must be prepared to commit our forces to UN operations. The UN must alter radically its planning, intelligence and analysis, and develop a far more substantial professional military staff. When the moment comes, a field headquarters must be ready to move, with an operational communications system up and running immediately rather than weeks into the deployment. The Brahimi report is right. We should implement it, and do so within a twelve month timescale."

#3: "Respect for each other's independence and sovereignty is vital to the maintenance of world peace. Countries would not be able to live in amity unless they follow the five principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual nonaggression, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence and strictly comply with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

"Matters that fall within the scope of sovereignty of a country should be managed only by the government and people of that country, and the world affairs should be handled by the governments and people of all countries through consultation. . . . The world is diverse and colorful. Just as there should not be only one color in the universe, so there should not be only one civilization, one social system, one development model or one set of values in the world. Each and every country and nation has made its own contribution to the development of human civilization. It is essential to fully respect the diversity of different nations, religions and civilizations, whose coexistence is the very source of vigorous development in the world."

It gives some insight on who in this world seeks to control and manipulate internationally and who does not.

------------------

As the victors define history, so does the majority define sanity...

[Flounder]

I have been lurking on this list for some time, but this subject forced me out into the open.

First as a soldier/sailor/or airmam in the US forces you are a nothing more than a tool of the National Command Authority (NCA). If the NCA chooses to participate in UN activities the military will follow the orders of the nation's civilian leadership.

If you don't want to accept this fact, don't enlist.

second I have been in the service of our nation for 13 years, I have had the opportunity to meet many first rate officers. Some of these men served as enlisted men prior to being an officer, some did not. I have also meet some real scumbags who give the officer corps a bad name (BTW I am an officer) some of these men served as enlisted troops prior to being an officer, some did not. If you want to earn the respect of your men, it all starts with the person looking at you in the mirror each morning, not with the route you take to become an officer.

third the oath of office has no mention of the president - here is a copy of the oath I took

I, FULL NAME, having been appointed a Second Lieutenant, in the United States Air Force, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter. SO HELP ME GOD.

fourth there is no case law involved the the trooper who was courtmashled for not wearing the blue beanie, he refused to follow a leagal order, who is in violation of the Uniformed Code of Militay Justice (UCMJ). This offense holds a maximum punishment of death.

When you sign on the dotted line, you have signed away some of your rights as a citizen,

and have become a tool of national policy.

This is the reality of the the subject.

Good luck

Flounder

[pzvg]

Democracy? whassat? If this is a democracy, why is THAT man in the White House? <jk>

Now we've gotten all hot and bothered for nothing, since reality says this is more pipe smoke, what is reality? For those unfamilar or uncomfortable with the subject,

try this, percentage of the world's nuclear arsenal controlled by the UN, 0%

percentage of the world's nuclear arsenal controlled by the US, 50%

Fact is, nobody can MAKE the United States do what it doesn't want to do.

And you can call it whatever you like,since renaming it will not alter a basic truth.

If America doesn't want to do it, we won't.

And MJ, please don't get lost in all this high-minded crap slinging, If you're going in, well, there ya are bud, you're in, and ya go where they say,ya do what they order unless it directly contradicts the laws of the United States of America, and here's a hint, past all the glory and duty,honor,country BS, the real reason ya do it is for your buds, because they are who the real deal obligation is to.

Finis.

------------------

Pzvg

"Confucious say, it is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"

[marcusm]

Just to say that I'm impressed that a thread about politics managed this far without being locked up . (or resulting in multiple bans)

Anyone up for a discussion about religion?

Marcus

[1CavMan]

I agree with the doubts expressed about your ability to be posted to an armored cav unit. In regards to who you fight for or when... you essentially have no choice once you sign on the dotted line w/ the Army.