U.N. Gun Debate

[Skye]

See, we didn't need to arm the general population because we had this amazing idea which involved intercepting the enemy forces before they arrived.

'Dad's Army' was a lie?!?!@?!1111

[Sayonara]

'Dad's Army' was a lie?!?!@?!1111

If they called the Home Front "everyone", then yes.

[atinymonkey]

Hahah That is laughable. As I am sure you are well aware, being the economics expert who you must surely be, I am certain that you are only speaking in jest.

If that sentence made any sense, you may have been better able to get your point across. As I work as a Buisness Analyst in a multinational corporation, I'll have to assume you sarcasm was because you thought I was a schoolchild with no experience in economics. Perhaps you'll pay more attention to the principles I'm telling you now you know I actually know the subject I'm discussing. One can only hope.

 

As I am sure you are aware, member contributions are calculated based upon the total percentage of member nation contribution to the global economy.

This, although true, hold almost no relevant fact at all. Members pay the UN to be in the UN. This we know, have detailed and agreed on.

 

As the US represents roughly one fifth of that global economy, principally as a consumer of world goods, do you REALLY think that most nations of the world would be able to afford any form of sanction against us that prohibited us from buying their goods?

This is highlighting the weakness of American economics rather than the global economy. This is the crux of the US economic instability, it imports far more than it produces and so is incapable of having a self sustaining economy without severe reductions in standards of living (frugal would be decadent in comparison). The US has no major exports at all, save the entertainment industry. In economic terms it is a leach sucking resource from other countries.

 

Even if countries were not able to sell to the US, no country would go bankrupt with a surplus of resource. The majority of states that export the states do so under duress, not from choice. Cash crops grown to sell to the US at a substantially reduced rate to pay, this is done to pay off the debt the country holds with the US which cannot be paid off, while the country is then forced to buy back enough food to feed the population. It's the circle of poverty, and an exploitation of a third world country. Removing that exploitation would benefit the developing nations, certainly not hinder them.

 

Oh, there would bankrupt nations to be sure, but the US would not be one of them.

Simply repeating that there would be bankrupt nations does not help your argument. It is impossible for a country to go bankrupt, a bank cannot own a country. Your confusing personnel finance with global economics. Stop it. France does not do international trade on a Visa card.

 

If we were to assume for a moment it were possible for a country to go bankrupt, the US would have already have been called into the receivers.

 

For one thing, you do not have to be a member of the United Nations in order to trade with other member nations.

Yes, that's very true. But you do need access to the WTO and the international stock exchange. Why do you think sanctions against Iraq, Iran, Somalia etc worked? Because they didn't know other countries existed?

 

Just in case you don't realize who controls the international stock exchange, it's London. London also underwrites all insurance companies and also underwrites the world bank.

 

Our withdrawal only effects our trade relations IF the UN attempts to sanction us.

Yes, things only happen if they happen. Very clever.

 

Given that various members with Veto rights require our trade to be able keep their nations healthy, I don’t see those sanctions happening.

Ok, back that up. Name one country that could not exist without American trade. Just one that is reliant totally on America. I can name 20 that would benefit from the suspension of trade. Can you see France, Germany and Russia supporting US trade? They have the majority of the votes, after the UK. And the UK, do you think we would give up the chance of controlling the world economy?

 

For another, with a 20-25% reduction in funds, the UN itself would be in serious financial difficulties. Can other nations pick up the slack? SURE! So long as they are given additional concessions, nothing comes for free, and that is also assuming that a new entity is not created that makes the UN obsolete. Why do we need more than NATO to begin with?

I hardly think a 1% rise in membership fees will be noticed. It's not even in line with cost of living. Given that most of that money goes to the UN's work with the US in America then the UN may even save money with it's withdrawal.

 

Here are a few statistics that you may find interesting' date=' spin them however you like.

 

Rank Country GDP Date of Information

1 World

$ 51,480,000,000,000 2003 est.

2 United States

$ 10,990,000,000,000 2003 est.[/quote']

Why would I 'spin' them? They are not relevant other than highlighting how much resource the US takes from other nations. Can you say 'redistribution of wealth', I bet you can.

 

China, Japan and India combined are slightly larger than our economy, but no one else is even in the same league.

China is communist, and still has a substantial presence in the capitalist system. If they altered the economy slightly, they could isolate all American interests and cripple the US economy. But again, all your doing is pointing out how much other countries would benefit from retention of resource.

 

Please allow me to get your expert opinion here… Given how dependent Japan and India are on the US economy and to a much lesser extent China, which way do you think the economic winds will blow with those nations? My opinion is that it will go in which ever way continues to allow them to sell goods in the US. Oh, another little tidbit for you. The top 5 nations are roughly equal to the GDP of the remainder of the world.

You raise an interesting point. Japan alone owns 37% of American industry. I would not call that dependant though, it's the opposite really. However, I'm fantastically interested in how communist China is dependant on the US? Could you substantiate that for me?

 

Thanks for remaining me that the top 5 nations are competing for a greater share of the world economy. Perhaps you think they would allow the US to keep the top spot out of generosity.

 

You misuderstand sanctions, by the way. The UN can really pick and choose what they put sanctions on. Mobile phones and TV's would not be high on the list. Oil, however, would.

 

Then again, we are all off topic. The US destroys more grain each year than most nations could consume, our farmers are paid by government subsidy to grow food that will rot in crates..

Yes, this is true. They are paid to produce food. That food is not enough per year to feed US population for more than 16 days. That's not what I'd class as self sufficient, more hugely wasteful. Do you not find it interesting that the US cannot export this grain to anybody? It's a big flashing warning sign when nobody needs your exports and you have to let the food rot.

 

In the event the US were ever truly isolated, which is a pipe dream that I am sure you richly enjoy, then we could feed ourselves and our neighbors with only minor issue.

It's your pipe dream. Your the one who wants to isolate the US so you can play with your phallic gun. But as I said, you could feed yourself for 16 days and no more. The economy would have collapsed well beofre that. You may be forgetting the greatr depression here, but I am not.

 

We are not an over crowded nation that can not ramp up whatever production is needed to feed ourselves, I would be interested to see where you came up with that particular epiphany.

Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. Tell me, during the 1920's just how self sufficient did the US manage to be? That's where the US treasury bases it's estimates, and the population has increased 14 times since then. A depression in the US would not be a slight tightening of belts, it would be a return to a feudal state.

 

You may declare this egotistical; I would submit that the US flourishes because of our relations with other nations. That relationship does not have to involve supporting an entity, even one we created, whose goals are contrary to those of the United States, nor is our ability to trade with other nations necessarily tied to that relationship. The US is not an island, but the UN’s continued instance on meddling with our internal affairs has no place. We are a free people, we are more than capable of deciding what laws serve us best. A disarmed populous, which was the original post, serves no one other than our enemies.

 

Ah, I also remember the LA riots. The citizens right to return to anarchy. I also find interesting that your more than happy to 'meddle' in other countries affairs at the drop of a hat, but cry bloodily murder if anyone suggest that the US should be helped to protect itself from itself. This duplicitous viewpoint is elitist, undermining and childish.

[sepultallica]

its too bad this thread turned to economics rather than a gun debate. i just finished reading the other gun debate and realized that it was closed. damn did i have some points.

[Douglas]

is it me or does that name sound suspiciously "French"

Bloodhound, talking about the French, has anyone googled "french military victories" then hit "I'm feeling lucky"??

 

Viva Le Guns........Viva la guns

[Mad Mardigan]

French Military Surplus guns availible through your local FFL, never been fired and only dropped once. France moved its terror scale from hide to run when its largest supplier of white flags mysteriously caught on fire. Only scale higher on the list is the Germans are back, please plant trees for shade.

 

[Sayonara]

That's quite enough of that ta.

[atinymonkey]

Bloodhound' date=' talking about the French, has anyone googled "french military victories" then hit "I'm feeling lucky"??

[/quote']

 

Napoleon did conquer half the world. Perhaps that's not something your aware of. Short guy, liked to keep one hand warm. Crucial in the formation of American Independance. Auguste Bartholdi, one of his commanders, gave you a large statue of a metal bint holding a torch.

 

French Military Surplus guns availible through your local FFL, never been fired and only dropped once. France moved its terror scale from hide to run when its largest supplier of white flags mysteriously caught on fire. Only scale higher on the list is the Germans are back, please plant trees for shade.

 

The French suffered the worst military losses in the 1st and 2nd World Wars. Both wars they gave their best to fight a superior force suffering much worse atrocities than have a couple of buildings being knocked over by two planes. America was the country hiding behind it's mothers skirts while the war was being fought. The last minute decision to join W.W.II did not excuse the fact the US had been avoiding the fight for almost a decade. Before you start calling the French cowards, think carefully about what they called America when it refused to send help.

[bloodhound]

Bloodhound' date=' talking about the French, has anyone googled "french military victories" then hit "I'm feeling lucky"??

 

Viva Le Guns........Viva la guns[/quote']

I was just wondering if whether he is french or not. amazed that americans can torelate a guy whos name sounds french or possibly is french to be in command of NRA, especially during this time of extreme anti french attitude in america

[Pangloss]

especially during this time of extreme anti french attitude in america

 

Reports or our anti-gallic sentiments are somewhat exaggerated, IMO.

[Douglas]

I was just wondering if whether he is french or not. amazed that americans can torelate a guy whos name sounds french or possibly is french to be in command of NRA, especially during this time of extreme anti french attitude in america

blood hound, the small amount anti french sentiment is confined to the French in France. It does NOT extend to the French Americans, since we're a multi culture society.

[Douglas]

ATINYMONKEY, you've got the wrong person (me) in your 2nd quote in post #33

[atinymonkey]

Fixed.

[bloodhound]

then why rename french fries to freedom fries? I am sure even if u are french american, the word french will have a negative connotation to it.

[Douglas]

Fixed.

Thanks

[Douglas]

then why rename french fries to freedom fries? I am sure even if u are french american, the word french will have a negative connotation to it.

bloodhound, NO, it won't. French Americans are not called "French Americans" like the Afro Americans are called "Afro Americans" which is by their choice. I've never heard anyone utter a word about French Americans (which are only identified by name) I think all Americans on this board will agree....I think.

 

As for "Freedom Fries", That was the "hate France" group, it only lasted a couple of weeks......I call them "french fries", of course, I have visions of Jacques Chirac while I'm eating them.

[Pangloss]

I don't know anybody who goes to McDonald's and orders "Freedom Fries". And if they did, they'd get nothing but funny looks and presumptions of obsession with politics and ideology. Being looked down upon by a minimum-wage order-taker is not on anyone's list of priorities that *I* know. I do know maybe two or three people who have "Boycott France" bumper stickers, but it's merely a political statement, not a modus operandi. They still go to Blockbuster's every Friday night, even after I point out that it's owned (or was) by a French company. (I just love to point out hypocrisy to people, but I've run into a brick wall in this case, because they just shrug and admit it's just a statement.)

 

There are always nitwits in every society who jump on bandwagons and respond to demogoguery and childish behavior. Your own country is hardly immune to such behavior. So I'd watch where you cast those stones.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3750690.stm

[bloodhound]

pangloss, you always assume that i am throwing stones. and i dont get the point of the article you linked.

[Pangloss]

I don't have to assume anything.

 

amazed that americans can torelate a guy whos name sounds french or possibly is french to be in command of NRA, especially during this time of extreme anti french attitude in america

 

I'm not taking offense, mind you. I'm simply informing you that your perception is incorrect (in my opinion). You can, of course, believe as you like.

[bloodhound]

Sixty-four percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of France, according to the poll. Two of five consider France either unfriendly or an enemy. And 54% say France is "stabbing the U.S. in the back."

 

http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2003-03-17-anti-france-protest_x.htm

 

 

I admit that article is pretty old. but those sentiments still remain.

[Douglas]

Sixty-four percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of France' date=' according to the poll. Two of five consider France either unfriendly or an enemy. And 54% say France is "stabbing the U.S. in the back."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2003-03-17-anti-france-protest_x.htm

I admit that article is pretty old. but those sentiments still remain.[/quote']

bloodhound, the figures you posted look about right to me. France (in my opinion) has never been friendly toward the U.S....This goes back to Charles DeGaulle. I think DeGaulle was embarassed and embittered that the U.S. and Brits had to liberate his country after Hitler crushed them. He could never admit or come to terms that the great French empire was a piece of crap.

So he took it out on the Americans and it's been that way ever since.

 

Keep in mind that this animosity is toward France.....NOT toward the French people who live in the U.S.

[Pangloss]

That report is over a year and a half old (3/03), and came right at the moment when anti-French sentiment was at its absolute worst.

 

I'm not accusing you of drum-beating, I'm just questioning how, given that you don't live in this country, you can say something like this:

 

I admit that article is pretty old. but those sentiments still remain.

 

How do you know that "those sentiments still remain"?

 

I live here, and I don't see it. I'm not saying it's gone, I'm saying it's trivial at best.

[bloodhound]

Its a fair statement. Nothing has happened since 3/03 that would have changed the peoples mind about france. If the same poll was taken now, you will get similar or worse results.

[Douglas]

How do you know that "those sentiments still remain"?

I live here' date=' and I don't see it. I'm not saying it's gone, I'm saying it's trivial at best.[/quote']

I believe that those sentiments remain the same. I believe that Jaques Chirac is undermining us, whether intentionally or just "fall out" from his political ideology.

I believe that most Americans are fond of the British and are "turned off" or indifferent about the French.

[Pangloss]

Ok, well I obviously disagree, but I'm not one to argue with someone's honest opinion. It was mostly the characterization that it's the *predominent* opinion here that I felt needed to be objected to. Having noted my objection, I'll move on.

 

(*Mentally adjusting grocery list to read "Freedom Fries", since the store otherwise won't understand what I'm looking for.*)