US bombers fly over the Gulf amid tensions with Iran

If you do not even know what the Treaty is then there is no point in discussion till you have more knowledge.

 

You believe you can commit genocide with no come back? I do not even know why I am giving someone with this mindset one second of my time. Iran may well be more advanced than the US at electronic warfare. The bully always harms when he believes he is safe..but lets see him turn into the coward when he understands others have the big fix too - aimed at them.

 

https://howmuch.net/articles/united-nations-budget-contributions-by-country-2019

• The U.S. contributes hundreds of millions more than any other country in support of the UN, providing some 22% of the organization’s total budget.
  
  Are these benefits worth the size of the American investment? To keep things in perspective, the millions spent on the UN is a rounding error in the U.S federal budget of $4.1T. That being said, the budget deficit keeps growing, and just hit $319B for the first 3 months of the government’s 2019 fiscal year. If the deficit is only going to get worse, then perhaps every penny of U.S. expenditures deserves scrutiny.

 

If Iran had superior electronic warfare capability Israel's defense would be crippled. It takes lots of money and a huge pool of qualified computer techies in order to have the best electronic warefare which Iran has neither of.

 

Do you know what an EMP is designed to do? One thing it does not do is kill people.

 

Iran is pointing fingers at Israel and America without having proof they were involved. That alone is a knee jerk reaction.

 

This week it was South Korea: CNN - Armed Iranian troops boarded South Korean tanker, ship's owner says

You don't really think of Iran, of missile-launching, ship-seizing, and bomb-planting fame, as ... pacifist, do you? They've been supplying weapons and manpower to most of the region's most vile (excluding Iran itself) actors for decades.

 

You don't offer a cite for this. Do you have a credible source for what you claim here?

Believed by whom? Let's just take the conscription thing for a moment: Who believes conscription would become necessary in a war with Iran? Where did you read / hear / see that?

 

No No - you are not getting it - "WAR" as in attacking the others homeland - with bombs and so on .. And was SK that shot the first blow in the ridiculous non example of war - "nations at war" - that you gave.

Do we need to go back to kindergarten here and start defining terms - or are you just being obtuse on purpose

 

All previous US Governments since the founding of the UN have thought so. The location and money spent give you leverage other nations don't have. Subtle leverage perhaps but leverage none the less.

As for the US deficit . Both sides of politics abandoned any seeming concern about its size long ago. Based on recent evidence the Republicans as much if not so than the Democrats. Ceasing to the fund the UN will make no difference to the deficit. The largest component of the budget (increasing as a % annually) is Mandatory Spending. This is largely composed of budget line items like social security and medicare/aid etc.

Failing to address these growing mandatory payments in some way shape or form means that in the long term dropping all Discretionary Spending including the entire Defense budget will not stop the deficit from increasing. The mandatory spending element will simply continue to grow until it eats the entire cake! In that context the amount spent of the UN is irrelevant. Closing off the multiple tax loop holes, deductions and assistance packages given to the wealthy and those industries/groups with the best lobbyists would do far more practical good.

 

I never said stop funding the UN although we need to consider cutting back on the funding. No previous government has been this far in debt and it will continue to grow so long as the covid-19 virus is around. We could save the money used for the upkeep of the building and providing security among other things unrelated to the UN's actual mission. And you are correct about both parties spending like drunken sailors and I don't see that changing ever. It will only get worse.

 

Then we're really just quibbling over minor details. At its worse the UN is bureaucratic farce. At its best its a place where issues of international concern can be raised, discussed and planned for. And as long as those nations are talking not shooting that's better than nothing.

 

Attacking a nation's vessels at sea is more than enough to start a war. There are tons of examples of exactly that throughout history.

 

There is a difference between something that might start a war .. and being engaged in a full on war.

Do you not understand this distinction ?

 

So you consider moving the UN to another country just quibbling? I want to see the US cut back cut back on funding and I want the UN moved to a different country and my reason why was stated in my last post which you clearly ignored which is why only posting a portion of someone's post is wrong.

"We could save the money used for the upkeep of the building and providing security among other things unrelated to the UN's actual mission." flyboy56

 

Did you also complain about other allies supporting Obama's sanctions against Iran? Did you say those allies were just kissing Obama's backside?

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/31/fact-sheet-sanctions-related-iran

“Because of our efforts, Iran is under greater pressure than ever before…Few thought that sanctions could have an immediate bite on the Iranian regime. They have, slowing the Iranian nuclear program and virtually grinding the Iranian economy to a halt in 2011. Many questioned whether we could hold our coalition together as we moved against Iran’s Central Bank and oil exports. But our friends in Europe and Asia and elsewhere are joining us. And in 2012, the Iranian government faces the prospect of even more crippling sanctions.”

President Barack Obama
March 4, 2012

 

What you have posted makes no sense. What was there to complain about in 2012 - when the entire security council was on board with sanctions ? This is a completely different situation .. and the difference between "Legitimate" and "Illegitimate"

None of the SC was on board with Trumps unilateral sanctions - "Hence the term "Unilateral"

Do you not understand why this difference matters mate ?

 

So you're saying our allies should only support our sanctions if the UN Security Council gives their approval? Isn't it the right of every sovereign nations to make their own decisions even if the UN does not approve it? Do you think Russia or China would have approved of the sanctions? The UN has become much like our congress, divided and stagnant.

 

You didn't even bother to look, obviously.

Constitution of Syria, 1973-2012:

https://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/mideast/SY/syria-constitution-1973/view

Constitution of Syria, 2012-today:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct....pdf?lang=en&usg=AOvVaw2VyoXBm34pYZeUwzGp9gqq

Ever heard of the martial law clamped down by the Baath party (Assad's party) as soon as it seized power? (1963 coup d'etat). It was abolished in 2011, under pressure from the popular uprising. The longest ranging period of active martial law. Do you know what happens under martial law? The constitution is abolished, basic rights are severely restricted. That's your Syrian paradise that never was.

Here's a short overview of the Garden of Eden on Syrian soil, since independence:
https://uca.edu/politicalscience/da...africapersian-gulf-region/syria-1946-present/

Charming place.

 

You have no clue what you are talking about - and have totally mischaracterized the legal system in Syria - cherry picking that which you think supports your claim and leaving out the glaring fact that - Sharia was abolished from Syria's legal system - sans petty stuff - like the sharia courts in Britain.

What part of "civil and criminal cases are heard in secular courts" - from your own link - did you not understand ?

What a disingenuous joke of a post. Either that or you have no clue what you are talking about .. no concept of the difference between Syria and your beloved El Saud.

Is this the case .. have you not figured out what the difference between these two societies is.

Bloody Pathetic be it the former or the latter.

 

What part of "the Constitution was abolished from 1963 until 2012" you don't understand? Laws were made by military commanders, the legal system was a joke.

 

Our Legal system is a joke as well - so what - what does any of your nonsensical gibberish have to do with Sharia in Syria in compared to Saudi Arabia - or other Muslim nations in the region.

No one is saying Syria had the best system - not even close but - compared to your beloved El Saud - Syria was a shining start of individual liberty and personal freedom.

The people of Syria made the choice A) Syria under Assad B) Syria under the Islamic State - your beloved rebel proxy army.

The people of Syria chose A - despite the desire of your beloved Obama to impose B on the people of Syria.

I personally think folks that take the side of B - are either disturbed or grossly misinformed . such as the person who claimed "that's a false choice" ... As an Islamic State is exactly what folks that Obama armed, supported , and supplied created ... so we don't have to guess.

Uninformed people - try to make this about Assad Regime - and forget the people of Syria - people such as you - That too is pathetic.

Don't talk to me further on this issue - I can only deal with so much disingenuous denial of reality in one day - and you will only make yourself look even worse than you already do in trying to defend the indefensible

 

No I consider the amount of money saved by moving the UN to be quibbling. You admitted yourself that the amount your talking about saving by moving the building and not having to pay for maintenance and security etc is tiny. In fact you called the entire amount spend by the US on UN related matters a 'rounding error' (your words) compared to the size of the deficit. And the cost of building maintenance and security (the costs you wanted to save) are an even smaller proportion of that tiny amount!

So given that fact it literally makes no difference where it's located. Which was the reason I only addressed part of your post. That part I considered relevant. And I didn't ignore the rest of your post. What you decide to spend the 'savings' on doesn't really matter - its chump change. As a rule BTW to save space in a post I tend to cut out the part I wish to comment on if I have nothing to say on the rest of it.

I get the fact you dislike the UN and don't see a need for significant (if any) US involvement. But arguing that the money saved by not being involved is an important issue is simply incorrect. In or out of the UN the US federal budget would barely notice. I simply don't see the cost of being 'in' as a strong argument for leaving. Other arguments maybe/perhaps, but not that one.

 

Building should be in France or something.
And it would be a good thing. All them French people who than get jobs working at the UN, proving security, cleaning it etc.
All them officials flying over to have talks need hotels and restaurants, entertainment.... all proving job opportunities for the French.
It would be a good thing, since the Americans don't like the UN due to raving fake news messages.

 

That chump change could help a lot of poor folks. I guess you're doing just fine. And again I never said the US should leave the UN. There is a reason why a reply should include the entire post. I think the UN is a joke when you consider the countries that are members of the SC. The US pays for the upkeep of the building among other things on top of paying millions more than any other country to support the UN's mission? adding up to 1/5 of the cost. I placed a question mark because I really don't know what the UN's mission is.