So...Global politics.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

This will get messy and will cover many different issues.

I'll just start with a blast from the past - The League of Nations, officially started in 1919 after WW1 ended in the European front. At its height it had 58 member states. It's goal was to try and stop future wars and settle disagreements in other ways than war. It failed in most cases, but it also had some limited success.

The League was at first an assembly of the victorious powers of WW1. Many nations did not join the organization, and others such as Germany were denied admission at first because of their nature in WW1. The USSR was denied admission because it had a communist regime. Many of the suggestions of the League were not implemented as they lacked the military might to pull it off because they were supposed to be neutral. Examples are the annexation of Vilnus by Poland, the conquest of Manchuria by Japan, Italian aggression in east Africa, the Spanish civil war, the Bolivian-Paraguayan war and most famously the steps of Nazi Germany before the war. What went wrong? Well, the League had to have unanimous votes in many cases, and that the nations would have been a part of the League themselves. These were the first steps of "international law", but the organization was weak in its application.

It drew much criticism due to the nature of the 'mandate' it gave to super-powers over colonial possessions struggling nations in the former Ottoman Empire, Africa, and the Pacific. The absence of the USA was also noted as it was flung to the international scene following WW1. All in all, it was a nice try, but it failed miserably in many key cases. What did it do right? The Saar region, Silesia region split, and.... err.... I think there are more. I hope.

The League of Nations was an attempt to make 'international law' and enforce it... internationally.

Following WW2, we introduce the UN which inherited many of the League of Nations' institutions, like the mandate one. As I pointed out before, the mandate system was more akin to Europe's superpowers taking control of more colonial possessions than anything else. After the war, the USA and USSR were building their spheres of influence around their neighbors and allies - but first they had to pacify the once great empires of Europe. The process of decolonization was slow and painful, as old powers tried to cling to power, but their departure from their colonies opened a door for Soviet/American influence to creep in. It also created the non-aligned nations, a byproduct of the cold-war and the decolonization process.

After the suez crisis the last European powers had fallen from grace. With Egypt, the suez and India lost, so was the jewel of the UK's crown. France had lost in Vietnam and her colonial possessions in Africa seemed like a dream, especially with their failure in the Algerian war of independence. With that, the super-powers of the USA and the USSR continued to gather allies and strategical allies. There were many proxy wars fought, and a MAD situation was already in sight once (Cuban Missile Crisis), but at the end the USSR collapsed.

Back to international law - the formation of the UN. I ague that the UN served a similar purpose to the League of nations, which is forcing the will of the super-powers over over nations and using as merely a tool for gathering more influence. The voting system in the UN fit the climate of the times. It often lead to an inability to act in many cases, most recently the Syrian Civil war. An example of the facade that is the UN would be the Khmer Rogue and its status there up until '93 (if I recall correctly). It also makes you think of the cold war in other terms - not in terms of opposing ideologies, but in terms of opposing super-powers and spheres of influence.

The military alliances of NATO and the Warsaw pact once existed to serve as counterparts to each other. However after the decline of the USSR the Warsaw pact fell apart. Even though some of the mentioned nations still hold tight relations with Russia, NATO is still in full swing and fully operational. But now that the Warsaw Pact is gone, what purpose would NATO have? Of course it serves a great role, but what future enemies can it fight? Why keep such an organization afloat? The existence of NATO and its incursion into territory near Russia keeps Putin the tzar on edge. It might be just me, but I know why they couldn't have NATO missile batteries in the Ukraine or in Turkey. Acknowledging the fact that currently NATO is not some omnipotent global policing force as some thought of before (Demonstrated by the terrible bitch-slapping Georgia received from Russia), my idea here is just speculations.

Since the USSR had fallen, we now only have one super-power : The USA. This is about to change. The nature of the UN and old loyalties drives the USA to its own destruction. The economical disasters, although (I hope) are not the work of some shady autocrats, prove to be convenient tools in the arsenal of the USA's opponents. The "war on terror" had weakened the USA economically and besmirched its good name. Further meddling in the middle-east are only going to hurt the USA, as Russia keeps Iran as a regional power to keep the USA and its 'allies' busy elsewhere. With the EU going downhill, one would expect to see it collapse. Many options remain in the table, the most prominent being the destruction of the organization, the exclusion of certain members from the organization who suffer from severe economical problems or the survival of the organization. If the organization survives through this tough time, it will continue to absorb more nation states into it, including the Balkans, East Europe and even Turkey. Russia... does not like that. Not at all.

Russia is interested in gaining its influence in the countries it can still hold onto - the Ukraine, the Baltic states (and it already has Belarus in the bag). There are also many ethnic Russians in these countries, which nowadays serve Russia's main solution to its current demographic problem. One can see that the Ukraine had tried to wrestle away from Russia's grasp before, but with the EU gone it won't be able to resist. Neither could the previously other Warsaw pact members (lets just hope Germany will stay intact).

Iran is a regional power, with control over Iraq and Azerbaijan. Recently uprisings in Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen show us that Iran had been busy in stirring up some religious struggles. In overthrowing the Sunni regimes Iran could find natural allies in these nations. Lord knows they've done that to Iraq. If Assad's Syria survives, he will become Iran's "bestest friend"! But nowadays I don't think such a thing will happen. An atomic bomb is always a good idea to guarantee dominance (or taught suspecting nations).

The UN is also useless in terms of stopping war crimes and similar atrocities. With the Pol Pot example out of the way, most recent are the Yugoslavia breakdown and the wars which were waged as a result of them (I think I can partially blame the League of Nations for the Albania fiasco and the borders they set) - actually, let me just link this disaster:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War

The UN is often used as a stage to nasty things. Examples such as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights's abysmal track record:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Commission_on_Human_Rights
Where it became a tool for nations to attack others legally through the UN and block criticism of actions done within these nations. Syria was on the council and up for promotion in its status during the uprisings it had within it just a year ago.

Another example is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379
which was revoked after 16 years in this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_46/86
Because it was a condition Israel demanded before it would get to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Conference_of_1991
Because up to '93 the PLO was a terrorist organization in the eyes of Israel with its base in Tunis. Why? Well.... it's a long story. '67 war, Black September, Lebanon civil war.
During the talks the USA used its good standing among the nations to facilitate a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan...
Hell, if you will also take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Conference_against_Racism_2001
You'll see why I hold such contempt towards the UN and the way it's set up.

So... what DOES the UN do nowadays? I can't say it doesn't do any good - I would be lying. The UN had its successes, I will give it that. The codifying of the status of refugees and their treatment, for example, were pioneered by the League of Nations and later (most of the work was done by) the UN. It has human rights organizations and aid organizations that help many people in need (they are mostly funded by UN member states).

This is Global Politics as I see it. There are a shitload of details I missed like the current role of China in the world, which is another emerging Regional power who will graduate to Great power in a few years (or already have done so, I may be mistaken). Feel free to criticize me, add your own opinion on the matter, debate stuff, etc.

Haven't seen a thread from you in a little while. What the hell is Israel doing with that settlement expansion? I've gotta say, the timing makes it seem like a petty "fuck you" to Palestine and the international community.

OT: I object to your implication that the US and USSR used the UN to "weaken" the British and French empires. In the early 50s, the US was really not interested in getting embroiled into Southeast Asia or Egypt. I have yet to see any evidence that the US was interested in taking Britain's place as an empire-builder; rather, its later attempts to build "spheres of influence" were induced from paranoia regarding communism, not economic or geopolitical domination.

That was worth the read!

On the subject of the economy and NATO, I do not think it is quite as bad as you make it out to be. The economies are not failing per se, just not as strong as they once were. This will change, as it always does. They will bounce back stronger and will continue to grow until the next near collapse, and the cycle repeats.

NATO, I believe, will in the coming decades serve as sort of an international police force and counter weight to China and Russia. However, it is clear that the old nationalistic standards can not stand. I forsee countries giving up certain rights to the UN, and I think we will be better off because of that. The next wars will be fought through politics in an international legislature, not a battlefield.

dyre:
Haven't seen a thread from you in a little while. What the hell is Israel doing with that settlement expansion? I've gotta say, the timing makes it seem like a petty "fuck you" to Palestine and the international community.

OT: I object to your implication that the US and USSR used the UN to "weaken" the British and French empires. In the early 50s, the US was really not interested in getting embroiled into Southeast Asia or Egypt. I have yet to see any evidence that the US was interested in taking Britain's place as an empire-builder; rather, its later attempts to build "spheres of influence" were induced from paranoia regarding communism, not economic or geopolitical domination.

.
Yes, it was pretty much a "fuck you" to Palestine and their supporters. What do you think the Palestinian plea to the UN was, a nice handshake with Israel?
*shrugs*
I'm depressed at the current internal political situation here. I feel like I have nothing to choose from the assortment of parties on display.

O RLY? So what about The USA and USSR's insistence of pushing the fate of Palestine to the UN? the UK wanted to retain control over its colonies but it couldn't after the war (Nationalism played a part, but also was promises of statehood and meddling from the super-powers). The Egypt officer's revolt had significant influence from the USA and USSR intelligence communities. It led to Britain losing East Africa and the Suez canal - the debacle came to a crescendo at '56.
.

newfoundsky:
That was worth the read!

On the subject of the economy and NATO, I do not think it is quite as bad as you make it out to be. The economies are not failing per se, just not as strong as they once were. This will change, as it always does. They will bounce back stronger and will continue to grow until the next near collapse, and the cycle repeats.

NATO, I believe, will in the coming decades serve as sort of an international police force and counter weight to China and Russia. However, it is clear that the old nationalistic standards can not stand. I forsee countries giving up certain rights to the UN, and I think we will be better off because of that. The next wars will be fought through politics in an international legislature, not a battlefield.

.
If the current situation of the UN persists, I dread to see the day when a nation will be forced to follow the will of others because there are more of them.

I think you're too hard on the EU. I think it will have to change, but I think it will survive and turn the decline around. Collapse of the EU is a possibility, but I wouldn't say inevitable or even likely. Also, you would still be left with France, Germany and Britain who are all still in the second tier of powers.

TheIronRuler:

I'm depressed at the current internal political situation here. I feel like I have nothing to choose from the assortment of parties on display.

Start your own?

ClockworkPenguin:
I think you're too hard on the EU. I think it will have to change, but I think it will survive and turn the decline around. Collapse of the EU is a possibility, but I wouldn't say inevitable or even likely. Also, you would still be left with France, Germany and Britain who are all still in the second tier of powers.

.
They are indeed powerful players, but their influence and military might depends on their ability to sustain themselves economically. The unemployment rate throughout the EU is now at 11%. Areas such as Spain and Greece are experiencing their own miniature great depression. This will be interesting, and not matter how the EU fares this trip it will come out weaker than before. With this void, outside capital will come in and plant its seeds of influence within Europe. Of course there's the possibility of a tighter federal EU government like my friend has fantasies about, but I guarantee you it won't happen. Nations value their independence more than that, and most of the people are against it.

I know I'm sounding like a doomsayer here, but I'm just waiting for results to unfold.
.

Danny Ocean:

TheIronRuler:

I'm depressed at the current internal political situation here. I feel like I have nothing to choose from the assortment of parties on display.

Start your own?

.
Haha! No.

TheIronRuler:

.
Haha! No.

Why not? The current parties are all taking you in the same direction, down which you don't want to go, right?

There are others who think like you, right?

So get some people together and do it!

I'm heavily supportive of the U.N thanks to it's NGO's, but yeah I pretty much agree.
The biggest question for me though is whether we'll be able to get everyone to sign the Kyoto Protocol. At this point on Climate Change, everyone is blaming someone else and with Harper led Canada backing out, we're going nowhere fast. Many nations have reached peak oil, so we can't live on the current system.

You have to remember with Wilson's league of nations had even less power than the U.N. It couldn't enforce any kind of sanctions. It was mainly just the U.K and France and those two countries were appeasing the named aggressors. It failed of course. Mussolini still went closer to Hitler after invading Abyssinia. It wasn't "international" by any level.
(I would just like to add that Israel was one of those mandates, under the control of the British if I remember correctly.)

I think what's happening nowadays is the consequences of things that were done during the Cold War. The Vietnam War was a useless war fueled by paranoia. It's interesting that it's eventually the Vietnamese who eventually stopped the Khmer Rouge, who were the real monsters.
Then again France used torture in the Algerian war. The only reason France stayed was because of the pied-noir. It's otherwise known as the war without a name and what happened there is unforgivable.

A lot of the U.S's affluence was based on cheap oil, which is exemplified by the suburb. A dead end only made possible by the mismanagement of the U.S post world war wealth. The status quo can simply not be maintained.

I think you'll see the rise of Brazil, China and a lot of other developing countries, as they build up their industrial capabilities. Unfortunately, it's come as a trade off to the health of their people.

About your last paragraph. I don't want to make this thread "Things that are wrong with Israel's current political climate and it's association with the U.S", but I would like to say that Israel seems intent of starting war. It's not an easy area by far, especially considering that most of Israel's neighbors hate it and actually went to war with it beforehand, but Israel is not improving it's case.

I also have a bone to pick with the assertion that Iran was behind the Arab Spring. It's an argument reminiscent of many of the current or former leaders, saying that the insurgents are U.S spies, or terrorists or completely not existent. Just be careful of not properly evaluating them. Not understanding your "enemy" was the reason for the Vietnam war.

Global politics is complicated by far.

Danny Ocean:

TheIronRuler:

.
Haha! No.

Why not? The current parties are all taking you in the same direction, down which you don't want to go, right?

There are others who think like you, right?

So get some people together and do it!

.
Do you really want me to get into my country's internal politics? That's a lot of information.

I would need funding, prestige, past experience and some named brand recognition. Let me tell you a secret - I'm a nobody who's about to get drafted. Noway in hell I could do that.

TheIronRuler:

Do you really want me to get into my country's internal politics? That's a lot of information.

I would need funding, prestige, past experience and some named brand recognition. Let me tell you a secret - I'm a nobody who's about to get drafted. Noway in hell I could do that.

For want of a better comparison: Hitler totally did it, and he was a dick.

I'm not quite sure where you got the idea that the UN ever actually "helps" people, even it's largest endeavors dwarf in comparison to what non-UN NGO's and governmental organizations do. The UNHCR these days has a budget of 150M USD a year, this is smaller than most global relief NGO's like the IRC and world relief.
The UN handles a tiny fraction of relief efforts these days, and that has been the case for decades now, the EU, US, and the World Bank donate most of their relief money either directly, or trough NGO's.
Pretty much the only functioning relief agency the UN has today is UNRWA which has an operational budget of approx 1.3bln dollars.

CAPTCHA: Describe - Romney Ryan campaign logo, accepted "Liars".
Yep no bias there :)

Frission:
I'm heavily supportive of the U.N thanks to it's NGO's, but yeah I pretty much agree.
The biggest question for me though is whether we'll be able to get everyone to sign the Kyoto Protocol. At this point on Climate Change, everyone is blaming someone else and with Harper led Canada backing out, we're going nowhere fast. Many nations have reached peak oil, so we can't live on the current system.

You have to remember with Wilson's league of nations had even less power than the U.N. It couldn't enforce any kind of sanctions. It was mainly just the U.K and France and those two countries were appeasing the named aggressors. It failed of course. Mussolini still went closer to Hitler after invading Abyssinia. It wasn't "international" by any level.
(I would just like to add that Israel was one of those mandates).

I think what's happening nowadays is the consequences of things that were done during the Cold War. The Vietnam War was a useless war fueled by paranoia. It's interesting that it's eventually the Vietnamese who eventually stopped the Khmer Rouge, who were the real monsters.
Then again France used torture in the Algerian war. The only reason France stayed was because of the pied-noir. It's otherwise known as the war without a name and what happened there is unforgivable.

A lot of the U.S's affluence was based on cheap oil, which is exemplified by the suburb. A dead end only made possible by the mismanagement of the U.S post world war wealth. The status quo can simply not be maintained.

I think you'll see the rise of Brazil, China and a lot of other developing countries, as they build up their industrial capabilities. Unfortunately, it's come as a trade off to the health of their people.

About your last paragraph. I don't want to make this thread "Things that are wrong with Israel's current political climate and it's association with the U.S", but I would like to say that Israel seems intent of starting war. It's not an easy area by far, especially considering that most of Israel's neighbors hate it and actually went to war with it beforehand, but Israel is not improving it's case.

I also have a bone to pick with the assertion that Iran was behind the Arab Spring. It's an argument reminiscent of many of the current or former leaders, saying that the insurgents are U.S spies, or terrorists or completely not existent. Just be careful of not properly evaluating them. Not understanding your "enemy" was the reason for the Vietnam war.

Global politics is complicated by far.

.
The Kyoto protocol is a failure because of the way it was drafted as a voluntary treaty. Who would volunteer to cripple their economy?

Yes, I addressed the differences between the League of Nations and the UN in the text... did I?
*checks post*
Yep I did.

Vietnamese stopped the Khmer Rogue in what started as a border dispute... Hell, China invaded Vietnam after they got into Cambodia as a punishment.
The actions of France in Algiers would remain a stain in its relationship with the Arab world and its own history. Much worse than the Franco-Syrian war.

I think you're right that some elements within Israel wants war - because Israel is a country, comprised of people, like any other country, who have different opinions and goals. We're not a hive mind. I think. DO I HAVE FREE WILL? OH GOD HELP ME.

Oh no no no, Iran was not responsible for the "Arab spring", but as you see regularly secular protests often get hijacked by religious means. The fact of the matter is that these are mostly Shiite-majority countries or countries with a large Shiite minority Iran will find very useful if they're in control of the government.
.

Verbatim:
I'm not quite sure where you got the idea that the UN ever actually "helps" people, even it's largest endeavors dwarf in comparison to what non-UN NGO's and governmental organizations do. The IRO these days has a budget of 150M USD a year, this is smaller than most global relief NGO's like the IRC and world relief.
The UN handles a tiny fraction of relief efforts these days, and that has been the case for decades now, the EU, US, and the World Bank donate most of their relief money either directly, or trough NGO's.
Pretty much the only functioning relief agency the UN has today is UNRWA which has an operational budget of approx 1.3bln dollars.

.
Let me quote myself -

The codifying of the status of refugees and their treatment, for example, were pioneered by the League of Nations and later (most of the work was done by) the UN.

You're correct, but I can't disregard UNRWA.

TheIronRuler:

dyre:
Haven't seen a thread from you in a little while. What the hell is Israel doing with that settlement expansion? I've gotta say, the timing makes it seem like a petty "fuck you" to Palestine and the international community.

OT: I object to your implication that the US and USSR used the UN to "weaken" the British and French empires. In the early 50s, the US was really not interested in getting embroiled into Southeast Asia or Egypt. I have yet to see any evidence that the US was interested in taking Britain's place as an empire-builder; rather, its later attempts to build "spheres of influence" were induced from paranoia regarding communism, not economic or geopolitical domination.

.
Yes, it was pretty much a "fuck you" to Palestine and their supporters. What do you think the Palestinian plea to the UN was, a nice handshake with Israel?
*shrugs*
I'm depressed at the current internal political situation here. I feel like I have nothing to choose from the assortment of parties on display.

O RLY? So what about The USA and USSR's insistence of pushing the fate of Palestine to the UN? the UK wanted to retain control over its colonies but it couldn't after the war (Nationalism played a part, but also was promises of statehood and meddling from the super-powers). The Egypt officer's revolt had significant influence from the USA and USSR intelligence communities. It led to Britain losing East Africa and the Suez canal - the debacle came to a crescendo at '56.

At least the Palestinians have nationalistic aspirations as a reason for statehood. The Israeli response was just petty...

I don't see the issue with pushing the fate of Palestine to the UN. The British had washed their hands over the mandate, and it's not like anyone else was stepping up.

I hope you're not implying that the officer's revolt was some CIA / KGB operation. That's just insulting. There was a nationalist movement within the Egyptian military elite, caused by the humiliation of '48 and the disgruntlement at British occupation, and they acted on it. Despite all his flaws, Nasser was just about the opposite of a superpower puppet. It was high time for war-weary, bankrupt Britain to lose that colony...the course of history led to it, not the US or the UN.

Danny Ocean:

TheIronRuler:

Do you really want me to get into my country's internal politics? That's a lot of information.

I would need funding, prestige, past experience and some named brand recognition. Let me tell you a secret - I'm a nobody who's about to get drafted. Noway in hell I could do that.

For want of a better comparison: Hitler totally did it, and he was a dick.

.
I always thought he was a neat painter and racist.
.

dyre:

TheIronRuler:

dyre:
Haven't seen a thread from you in a little while. What the hell is Israel doing with that settlement expansion? I've gotta say, the timing makes it seem like a petty "fuck you" to Palestine and the international community.

OT: I object to your implication that the US and USSR used the UN to "weaken" the British and French empires. In the early 50s, the US was really not interested in getting embroiled into Southeast Asia or Egypt. I have yet to see any evidence that the US was interested in taking Britain's place as an empire-builder; rather, its later attempts to build "spheres of influence" were induced from paranoia regarding communism, not economic or geopolitical domination.

.
Yes, it was pretty much a "fuck you" to Palestine and their supporters. What do you think the Palestinian plea to the UN was, a nice handshake with Israel?
*shrugs*
I'm depressed at the current internal political situation here. I feel like I have nothing to choose from the assortment of parties on display.

O RLY? So what about The USA and USSR's insistence of pushing the fate of Palestine to the UN? the UK wanted to retain control over its colonies but it couldn't after the war (Nationalism played a part, but also was promises of statehood and meddling from the super-powers). The Egypt officer's revolt had significant influence from the USA and USSR intelligence communities. It led to Britain losing East Africa and the Suez canal - the debacle came to a crescendo at '56.

At least the Palestinians have nationalistic aspirations as a reason for statehood. The Israeli response was just petty...

I don't see the issue with pushing the fate of Palestine to the UN. The British had washed their hands over the mandate, and it's not like anyone else was stepping up.

I hope you're not implying that the officer's revolt was some CIA / KGB operation. That's just insulting. There was a nationalist movement within the Egyptian military elite, caused by the humiliation of '48 and the disgruntlement at British occupation, and they acted on it. Despite all his flaws, Nasser was just about the opposite of a superpower puppet. It was high time for war-weary, bankrupt Britain to lose that colony...the course of history led to it, not the US or the UN.

.
The Palestinians have the PA because of Israel and its concessions. The whole peace process is halted, and now that they've cemented their status it's like spitting in the face of Israel and the Oslo Accords. Before that the PLO was a terrorist organization in the eyes of Israel. Now they go around Israel and try to gather support for a country on territory Israel claims and borders they don't have.

The UN had already failed once with this dispute. The last time we had a significant breakthrough was under the guiding hand of the good 'ol USA pushing both sides to the table.

Implying? It's true that influence coming from the USA and USSR were one of the reasons for the officer's revolt. Nassar was no puppet, I did not claim that.

TheIronRuler:

Let me quote myself -

The codifying of the status of refugees and their treatment, for example, were pioneered by the League of Nations and later (most of the work was done by) the UN.

You're correct, but I can't disregard UNRWA.

The problem is that UNRWA does everything but solve the situation, the amount of "refugees" grew from 700-900,000 by worse estimates to over 5M(For that to happen each couple had to have 16 children out of which every child had to survive to get to these numbers, and that's just not humanly possible) in just over 60 years. There's a good reason why the US introduced an amendment to the relief funding law which requires in 2013 an actual count to figure out how many refugees actually are originally from Palestine and got displaced during the actually Palestinian civil war between 1946 and 1948 which was the original mandate for UNRWA, and how many hitch hikers are there.
UNRWA works on a completely different mandate than the UNHCR it's not allowed to settle a single refugee, or to provide any aid that would actually transform their status in any way, even de-facto with no official change in status.
Heck it's not only about refugees in Lebanon, Syria or Jordan, they can't even resettle refugees in the west bank or Gaza.
If that's not enough since 2007 Gaza generated about 30,000 new refugees, although they lived in Gaza all their life, they are not 1948 nor 1967 refugees in any way and they are citizens of the Palestinian National Authority, because they lost their home due to Israeli or Hamas actions, or even got evicted due to financial reasons they are now considered refugees under UNRWA's mandate which means no resettlement, fewer rights, and one heck of a bleak future...

Verbatim:
I'm not quite sure where you got the idea that the UN ever actually "helps" people, even it's largest endeavors dwarf in comparison to what non-UN NGO's and governmental organizations do. The IRO these days has a budget of 150M USD a year, this is smaller than most global relief NGO's like the IRC and world relief.
The UN handles a tiny fraction of relief efforts these days, and that has been the case for decades now, the EU, US, and the World Bank donate most of their relief money either directly, or trough NGO's.
Pretty much the only functioning relief agency the UN has today is UNRWA which has an operational budget of approx 1.3bln dollars.

CAPTCHA: Describe - Romney Ryan campaign logo, accepted "Liars".
Yep no bias there :)

Eh?

IRO is the original agency, UNRWA is the mission administered by the successor to that agency. There are more agencies just for the purpose of humanitarian/food/developmental relief than you mention:

United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) (Budget 2012: $11,700 million) source
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (Budget 2012: $856.5 million)source
World Food Programme (WFP) (Budget 2012: $5,484 million)source
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (Budget 2012: ~$2,400 million) source
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) (2012 budget: $292 million) source (download)
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) (2010 budget: $194 million)source

The IRO has since been relegated to a repatriation role by the UNHCR, which has a budget of $1,042.9 million. Or it did in 2007. I can only imagine it's grown.

IRC has ~$400m budget.
UNHCR alone has $1.04bn budget.

Together, all the agencies [1] concerned or involved in the same work[2] as IRC (listed above) have a total expenditure of roughly...

$20,935.5 million

Which is 52.34x IRC's budget.

The idea that the UN helps people? Well, let's keep going with this line of inquiry.

The idea that the UNHCR in particular helps people?

As of 1 January 2007, UNHCR reported a total of 21,018,589 individuals falling under its mandate. Wikipedia

And the UNHCR, as I mentioned, isn't the only agency.

You might want to double-check these things. I want to know where you got the idea that the UN doesn't help people.

[1] (althought I don't think that's all of them re-reading the IRC mission statement)
[2] The IRC's mission is to provide emergency relief, post-conflict development and resettlement services; to work for the protection of human rights; and to advocate for those uprooted or affected by violent conflict and oppression. Composed of first responders, humanitarian relief workers, international development experts, health care providers, and educators, the IRC has assisted millions of people around the world since its founding in 1933. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Rescue_Committee

TheIronRuler:

dyre:

TheIronRuler:

.
Yes, it was pretty much a "fuck you" to Palestine and their supporters. What do you think the Palestinian plea to the UN was, a nice handshake with Israel?
*shrugs*
I'm depressed at the current internal political situation here. I feel like I have nothing to choose from the assortment of parties on display.

O RLY? So what about The USA and USSR's insistence of pushing the fate of Palestine to the UN? the UK wanted to retain control over its colonies but it couldn't after the war (Nationalism played a part, but also was promises of statehood and meddling from the super-powers). The Egypt officer's revolt had significant influence from the USA and USSR intelligence communities. It led to Britain losing East Africa and the Suez canal - the debacle came to a crescendo at '56.

At least the Palestinians have nationalistic aspirations as a reason for statehood. The Israeli response was just petty...

I don't see the issue with pushing the fate of Palestine to the UN. The British had washed their hands over the mandate, and it's not like anyone else was stepping up.

I hope you're not implying that the officer's revolt was some CIA / KGB operation. That's just insulting. There was a nationalist movement within the Egyptian military elite, caused by the humiliation of '48 and the disgruntlement at British occupation, and they acted on it. Despite all his flaws, Nasser was just about the opposite of a superpower puppet. It was high time for war-weary, bankrupt Britain to lose that colony...the course of history led to it, not the US or the UN.

.
The Palestinians have the PA because of Israel and its concessions. The whole peace process is halted, and now that they've cemented their status it's like spitting in the face of Israel and the Oslo Accords. Before that the PLO was a terrorist organization in the eyes of Israel. Now they go around Israel and try to gather support for a country on territory Israel claims and borders they don't have.

The UN had already failed once with this dispute. The last time we had a significant breakthrough was under the guiding hand of the good 'ol USA pushing both sides to the table.

Implying? It's true that influence coming from the USA and USSR were one of the reasons for the officer's revolt. Nassar was no puppet, I did not claim that.

Look, I'm not objecting to Israel's concessions in the past. Israeli leadership in the past has obviously been a lot more accommodating than Arafat. But come on, Oslo didn't work. I'm not necessarily blaming Israel for that; it seems to me at least that the generous offer Arafat rejected was indeed reasonably generous. But it's been two decades and we still don't have borders. Of course the PA are going to try something different (and this is just a feeling, but the timing might have more to do with stealing some thunder from Hamas' recent "victory" than a "fuck you" at Israel).

I hate to be that asshole who asks for a source in an internet argument, but do you have a source that the US and USSR caused the officer's revolt in a manner meant to undermine British authority over the region? And you're not going to claim the US wanted France to lose Dien Bien Phu, are you? And let Vietnam fall to Ho Chi Minh?

Danny Ocean:
Snip

The UN is still not doing as much as you think, Catholic Relief Services helps over 130M people(budget 1bln) CARE international helps over 120M people(budget 0.6bln) , World Vision International over 100M(Budget 2.8bln), and for every UN agency you'll find a 100 private NGO and INGO's doing more work, with better results...

Verbatim:

Danny Ocean:
Snip

The UN is still not doing as much as you think, Catholic Relief Services helps over 130M people(budget 1bln) CARE international helps over 120M people(budget 0.6bln) , World Vision International over 100M(Budget 2.8bln), and for every UN agency you'll find a 100 private NGO and INGO's doing more work, with better results...

My point is that the UN does a whole more than you think, and I think that even with that single example I proved that to anyone reading with an open mind.

I want you to prove the point you make in this post, because I don't believe you. I think that you are predisposed to dislike the UN and are looking for anything you can find to prove its worthlessness. I used to think that way, too, until I actually did some work experience with it, got connections within it, and actually researched it (I've read like 6 books written solely on it, it's ridiculous, and there's still more to go x.x). Given what I've read on it, it's impossible for me to believe that it does anything less than a lot of good. Which is why I'm asking what you've read. I'd appreciate if you could provide me with that so I can take a look myself. Perhaps I'm wrong.

I can't argue that the UN helps more or less people in aggregate because I can't find the numbers for the other agencies, and its hard to judge those without registers (like UNHCR) because they engage in discrete projects and missions, rather than directly funding a certain number of people. That's also why I'd like to know how you got those numbers up there, because I can't see any citations for any of those numbers in the wikipedia pages for the respective organisations.

I assume it's because these agencies don't tend to engage in dick-waving contests about the 'numbers' they help. It's not a very good way of measuring these things, which is why I focused on budgets. I realize that's also a crap way, but at least it's easily externally verifiable.

I've not even mentioned the non-humanitarian aid aspect. The international organisational structure of the UN is vital to international activity, and its economic and political affairs departments save lives in their own ways, too. It's not saving the world by itself or anything, I never claimed that, but it is far, far, from useless.

Danny Ocean:
Snip

Funny,just wikied and those numbers appear in the first paragraph, or on the details pane of every organization i've listed.
The UN is a cluster fuck, the big shots do what ever they want, and the rest of it is filled with regimes that couldn't care less for any thing that the UN stands, or should stand for. It's a waste of money that could have been spent much better if it had a spine, or by smaller organizations that actually care about what they are doing.

Edit: I've also read multiple books on the UN, and you don't need to go so far as the tower of babel which borderlines on conspiracy, if you studied the UN in class i assume you read atleast one book by Thomas Weiss[1] you should really read some of his critical books like The UN whats wrong with it and how to fix it his Humanitarianism series, and The UN An Unfinished Journey...

Verbatim:

Funny,just wikied and those numbers appear in the first paragraph, or on the details pane of every organization i've listed.

The numbers do but the citations do not. I even read their annual reports and visited their websites. What? Do you honestly think that after citing all those obscure budget reports in my post I'd skimp on researching figures like that?

Perhaps I missed them on my quick research, but that's not my job, it's yours. Provide some citations or I'm going to assume you're talking out of your ass.

The UN is a cluster fuck, the big shots do what ever they want, and the rest of it is filled with regimes that couldn't care less for any thing that the UN stands, or should stand for. It's a waste of money that could have been spent much better if it had a spine,

Articles? Journals? Books? Statistics?

You've not given a single reason for me to believe what you're saying so far. I've given copious citations. I can even list the books, experience, and people I draw my knowledge of the UN from. Shall I do that? I think I will, just so you can judge and see if I'm biased:

or by smaller organizations that actually care about what they are doing.

I'm sorry, but this is bullshit. Do a casual google search of "UN Workers Die" and you'll see there are people dying for the UN cause all the fucking time. Mostly in anonymity, but some famously, so. I know for a fact that a whole office of them as was hacked to death with machetes in East Timor in one event. Because they stayed behind to evacuate locals. And that's not even including the actual guards or peacekeepers. While the higher ups may be detached, to accuse the workers of not caring is just cold.

Edit: I've never studied the UN solely in any class, it's just come up in Politics, Geography, Economics, History (A-levels); International Relations, Anthropology, and Philosophy (Degree). All this is off my own back. I'm actually looking at buying some new books now that you linked that voices project in your post. I just got that. Having a nose around. If you could suggest some more I'd be grateful.

Why does this discussion remind me of a van gogh painting?

vonmanstein:
Why does this discussion remind me of a van gogh painting?

peasants in a cafe discussing politics, drunk on absinthe.

FranzVonHoetzendorf:

vonmanstein:
Why does this discussion remind me of a van gogh painting?

peasants in a cafe discussing politics, drunk on absinthe.

Where are all these guys with avatars of man from black and white photos coming from?!

Frankly, I think this is starting to remind me more of a history book.

FranzVonHoetzendorf:

vonmanstein:
Why does this discussion remind me of a van gogh painting?

peasants in a cafe discussing politics, drunk on absinthe.

WE HAVE OUR WINNER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Frission:

FranzVonHoetzendorf:

vonmanstein:
Why does this discussion remind me of a van gogh painting?

peasants in a cafe discussing politics, drunk on absinthe.

Where are all these guys with avatars of man from black and white photos coming form?!

Frankly, I think this is starting to remind me more of a history book.

Erich von Manstein, Franz von H÷tzendorf, and ╔mile Zola discussing casual matters......

What kind of history book are you reading from??

vonmanstein:

Frission:

FranzVonHoetzendorf:

peasants in a cafe discussing politics, drunk on absinthe.

Where are all these guys with avatars of man from black and white photos coming form?!

Frankly, I think this is starting to remind me more of a history book.

Erich von Manstein, Franz von H÷tzendorf, and ╔mile Zola discussing casual matters......

What kind of history book are you reading from??

Whatever book I can read from my absinthe blurred eyes.

dyre:

TheIronRuler:

dyre:

At least the Palestinians have nationalistic aspirations as a reason for statehood. The Israeli response was just petty...

I don't see the issue with pushing the fate of Palestine to the UN. The British had washed their hands over the mandate, and it's not like anyone else was stepping up.

I hope you're not implying that the officer's revolt was some CIA / KGB operation. That's just insulting. There was a nationalist movement within the Egyptian military elite, caused by the humiliation of '48 and the disgruntlement at British occupation, and they acted on it. Despite all his flaws, Nasser was just about the opposite of a superpower puppet. It was high time for war-weary, bankrupt Britain to lose that colony...the course of history led to it, not the US or the UN.

.
The Palestinians have the PA because of Israel and its concessions. The whole peace process is halted, and now that they've cemented their status it's like spitting in the face of Israel and the Oslo Accords. Before that the PLO was a terrorist organization in the eyes of Israel. Now they go around Israel and try to gather support for a country on territory Israel claims and borders they don't have.

The UN had already failed once with this dispute. The last time we had a significant breakthrough was under the guiding hand of the good 'ol USA pushing both sides to the table.

Implying? It's true that influence coming from the USA and USSR were one of the reasons for the officer's revolt. Nassar was no puppet, I did not claim that.

Look, I'm not objecting to Israel's concessions in the past. Israeli leadership in the past has obviously been a lot more accommodating than Arafat. But come on, Oslo didn't work. I'm not necessarily blaming Israel for that; it seems to me at least that the generous offer Arafat rejected was indeed reasonably generous. But it's been two decades and we still don't have borders. Of course the PA are going to try something different (and this is just a feeling, but the timing might have more to do with stealing some thunder from Hamas' recent "victory" than a "fuck you" at Israel).

I hate to be that asshole who asks for a source in an internet argument, but do you have a source that the US and USSR caused the officer's revolt in a manner meant to undermine British authority over the region? And you're not going to claim the US wanted France to lose Dien Bien Phu, are you? And let Vietnam fall to Ho Chi Minh?

.
They didn't cause it, but they did agitate it. That's at least how I studied my history.

The US didn't France to lose Indo-China because the rebels were Communists - however, they did fight with the allies against the Japanese occupation. Do you think that the USA helped out France because they were good chums? It turned from France trying to keep its colonial possessions it lost during the war to the USA trying to stop USSR backed North Vietnam from existing spreading out.

Hell, you didn't see any Europeans rush to the aid of Netherlands against the rebelling Indonesia, did you?

TheIronRuler:

.
They didn't cause it, but they did agitate it. That's at least how I studied my history.

The US didn't France to lose Indo-China because the rebels were Communists - however, they did fight with the allies against the Japanese occupation. Do you think that the USA helped out France because they were good chums? It turned from France trying to keep its colonial possessions it lost during the war to the USA trying to stop USSR backed North Vietnam from existing spreading out.

Hell, you didn't see any Europeans rush to the aid of Netherlands against the rebelling Indonesia, did you?

The CIA had their fingers in a lot of things, but you're claiming that it was an organized effort by the US and USSR to weaken the old colonial powers, which is simply not true. Now, there was a strong anti-imperialist sentiment in the US, and often Americans were unsympathetic to the British going "ohnoes, we're losing our grip on the Middle East / India," but they were still our valued allies. To claim that the CIA would support a revolt because the British were in power, not despite the British were in power, just doesn't make sense. Especially since tens of thousands of British troops were fighting alongside us in Korea - I believe it was even one of the factors that helped make Eisenhower more sympathetic to the British than to Mossadegh, though of course the "communist" angle was the main reason.

About France in Indochina, that's exactly my point, because the Cold War was basically the US' overblown efforts to contain and then roll back the communists, who they mistakenly believed were out for a world empire. The US wasn't out to get France or Britain. Rather, they enjoyed the Western European help when they could, but were prepared to play the major role against the "red menace."

And by the way, when the US first decided North Vietnam was a communist threat and for much of the Vietnam War, North Vietnam had a lot more backing from China than it did from the USSR. USSR just played the "we supply weapons; you like us" game they usually liked to play.

And no, I didn't. I also didn't see much help for Portugal in Angola. What's your point :P

dyre:

TheIronRuler:

.
They didn't cause it, but they did agitate it. That's at least how I studied my history.

The US didn't France to lose Indo-China because the rebels were Communists - however, they did fight with the allies against the Japanese occupation. Do you think that the USA helped out France because they were good chums? It turned from France trying to keep its colonial possessions it lost during the war to the USA trying to stop USSR backed North Vietnam from existing spreading out.

Hell, you didn't see any Europeans rush to the aid of Netherlands against the rebelling Indonesia, did you?

The CIA had their fingers in a lot of things, but you're claiming that it was an organized effort by the US and USSR to weaken the old colonial powers, which is simply not true. Now, there was a strong anti-imperialist sentiment in the US, and often Americans were unsympathetic to the British going "ohnoes, we're losing our grip on the Middle East / India," but they were still our valued allies. To claim that the CIA would support a revolt because the British were in power, not despite the British were in power, just doesn't make sense. Especially since tens of thousands of British troops were fighting alongside us in Korea - I believe it was even one of the factors that helped make Eisenhower more sympathetic to the British than to Mossadegh, though of course the "communist" angle was the main reason.

About France in Indochina, that's exactly my point, because the Cold War was basically the US' overblown efforts to contain and then roll back the communists, who they mistakenly believed were out for a world empire. The US wasn't out to get France or Britain. Rather, they enjoyed the Western European help when they could, but were prepared to play the major role against the "red menace."

And by the way, when the US first decided North Vietnam was a communist threat and for much of the Vietnam War, North Vietnam had a lot more backing from China than it did from the USSR. USSR just played the "we supply weapons; you like us" game they usually liked to play.

And no, I didn't. I also didn't see much help for Portugal in Angola. What's your point :P

.
I beg to differ. I will say that the USA and USSR didn't engineer every single coup or revolt in the European's colonial possessions, but they were glad to see them lose their colonies. This translated sometimes to indirect support from the countries themselves. Much of the manpower that was at the disposal of Britain and France were troops from their colonies. I had the image in mind that the decolonization process would create new local states, countries that the USA and USSR could influence and ally with. But with major powers still lingering in Europe, how are we to trust they will support either side? There were fears of Communist parties taking a hold in Europe - such as in Italy and their loyalty&ideology were unknown. The USA dreaded the atomic bomb falling into the hands of the USSR - but didn't they also fear the atomic bomb falling to French hands a decade later? There's a difference between an ally and a dependent state, one that is allied to you because otherwise it would screw itself over. The decolonization process and the weakening of the European major powers gave birth to many different operations undertaken by the USA and USSR governments in trying to "convince" nations to join their side. With the European great powers gone, the void could be taken by the super-powers.

North Vietnam had a lot more backing from Red China because it was closer. They could field troops from China and they could move supplies&armies through Vietnamese territory to assist them. The USSR was too far away with no nearby bases. China also invaded North Korea at the third Ind-China war because they didn't play nice and topple the Cambodian Communist government - The Khmer Rogue, following a few border clashes that culminated in a full blown war and the overthrowing of the Communist regime (the remnants were pushed to the west). There is a difference between a strategical ally and a dependent state. You will prefer a Ukraine to your USSR, not an Egypt to your USA... if you catch my drift.

My point is that the super-powers weren't too keen on returning power to the European major nations. With them gone from the world stage, the USA and USSR can take over.

Danny Ocean:

TheIronRuler:

Do you really want me to get into my country's internal politics? That's a lot of information.

I would need funding, prestige, past experience and some named brand recognition. Let me tell you a secret - I'm a nobody who's about to get drafted. Noway in hell I could do that.

For want of a better comparison: Hitler totally did it, and he was a dick.

.
Did you seriously try to motivate me to make a left-oriented party in Israel by pointing towards Adolf Hitler? That was worth a good laugh. At least he served in a war and wrote a manifest. I got nothing.

TheIronRuler:

I beg to differ. I will say that the USA and USSR didn't engineer every single coup or revolt in the European's colonial possessions, but they were glad to see them lose their colonies. This translated sometimes to indirect support from the countries themselves. Much of the manpower that was at the disposal of Britain and France were troops from their colonies. I had the image in mind that the decolonization process would create new local states, countries that the USA and USSR could influence and ally with. But with major powers still lingering in Europe, how are we to trust they will support either side? There were fears of Communist parties taking a hold in Europe - such as in Italy and their loyalty&ideology were unknown. The USA dreaded the atomic bomb falling into the hands of the USSR - but didn't they also fear the atomic bomb falling to French hands a decade later? There's a difference between an ally and a dependent state, one that is allied to you because otherwise it would screw itself over. The decolonization process and the weakening of the European major powers gave birth to many different operations undertaken by the USA and USSR governments in trying to "convince" nations to join their side. With the European great powers gone, the void could be taken by the super-powers.

North Vietnam had a lot more backing from Red China because it was closer. They could field troops from China and they could move supplies&armies through Vietnamese territory to assist them. The USSR was too far away with no nearby bases. China also invaded North Korea at the third Ind-China war because they didn't play nice and topple the Cambodian Communist government - The Khmer Rogue, following a few border clashes that culminated in a full blown war and the overthrowing of the Communist regime (the remnants were pushed to the west). There is a difference between a strategical ally and a dependent state. You will prefer a Ukraine to your USSR, not an Egypt to your USA... if you catch my drift.

My point is that the super-powers weren't too keen on returning power to the European major nations. With them gone from the world stage, the USA and USSR can take over.

In some cases, the US was glad to see the colonial powers lose their colonies, but that's mainly due to the large amount of anti-imperalist sentiment that existed among the American public. The US government, notably under JFK, offered a lot of rhetoric about freeing those colonies, but in practice, it did almost nothing to liberate them. Furthermore, the US didn't engineer any coups in order to destabilize British or French possessions. We wanted the French to stay in Vietnam, we weren't involved in Algeria, we helped the British with Iran, we certainly didn't engineer the coup in India (or was Gandhi a CIA spy all along o_O), and as for Egypt I still want your source about the alleged CIA involvement and more importantly, its motives.

On Vietnam, that's kind of reductionist. China had a good relationship with Ho Chi Minh, and their alliance with North Vietnam lasted until sometime in the middle of the war, when the Red Chinese and the Soviets had a falling out, but by then Ho was dead or not really in power, don't remember which. Another reason China was an early and fervent supporter of N. Vietnam was that the new Communist Chinese government wanted to be the major player of the communist side, especially with the death of Stalin (while Mao accepted Stalin being more influential than him, he considered Khrushchev to be a baffoon who didn't deserve to represent the communists), so they promoted the Vietnamese to show their "revolutionary spirit." Lots of reasons were involved, but it's important to note that China had for a long time a much more passionate "supporter of the international revolution" sort of policy, while the USSR didn't really care about that, and prioritized defending its borders with buffer states. In the end, neither the US nor China really cared about owning Vietnam; they had their own motives, but world domination wasn't one of them.

Remember, neither the US nor the USSR really wanted to take over the world. They just both had this misguided belief that the other was going to do it, and felt the need to act in order to prevent that.

edit: removed a line I accidentally wrote twice

dyre:

TheIronRuler:

I beg to differ. I will say that the USA and USSR didn't engineer every single coup or revolt in the European's colonial possessions, but they were glad to see them lose their colonies. This translated sometimes to indirect support from the countries themselves. Much of the manpower that was at the disposal of Britain and France were troops from their colonies. I had the image in mind that the decolonization process would create new local states, countries that the USA and USSR could influence and ally with. But with major powers still lingering in Europe, how are we to trust they will support either side? There were fears of Communist parties taking a hold in Europe - such as in Italy and their loyalty&ideology were unknown. The USA dreaded the atomic bomb falling into the hands of the USSR - but didn't they also fear the atomic bomb falling to French hands a decade later? There's a difference between an ally and a dependent state, one that is allied to you because otherwise it would screw itself over. The decolonization process and the weakening of the European major powers gave birth to many different operations undertaken by the USA and USSR governments in trying to "convince" nations to join their side. With the European great powers gone, the void could be taken by the super-powers.

North Vietnam had a lot more backing from Red China because it was closer. They could field troops from China and they could move supplies&armies through Vietnamese territory to assist them. The USSR was too far away with no nearby bases. China also invaded North Korea at the third Ind-China war because they didn't play nice and topple the Cambodian Communist government - The Khmer Rogue, following a few border clashes that culminated in a full blown war and the overthrowing of the Communist regime (the remnants were pushed to the west). There is a difference between a strategical ally and a dependent state. You will prefer a Ukraine to your USSR, not an Egypt to your USA... if you catch my drift.

My point is that the super-powers weren't too keen on returning power to the European major nations. With them gone from the world stage, the USA and USSR can take over.

In some cases, the US was glad to see the colonial powers lose their colonies, but that's mainly due to the large amount of anti-imperalist sentiment that existed among the American public. The US government, notably under JFK, offered a lot of rhetoric about freeing those colonies, but in practice, it did almost nothing to liberate them. Furthermore, the US didn't engineer any coups in order to destabilize British or French possessions. We wanted the French to stay in Vietnam, we weren't involved in Algeria, we helped the British with Iran, we certainly didn't engineer the coup in India (or was Gandhi a CIA spy all along o_O), and as for Egypt I still want your source about the alleged CIA involvement and more importantly, its motives.

On Vietnam, that's kind of reductionist. China had a good relationship with Ho Chi Minh, and their alliance with North Vietnam lasted until sometime in the middle of the war, when the Red Chinese and the Soviets had a falling out, but by then Ho was dead or not really in power, don't remember which. Another reason China was an early and fervent supporter of N. Vietnam was that the new Communist Chinese government wanted to be the major player of the communist side, especially with the death of Stalin (while Mao accepted Stalin being more influential than him, he considered Khrushchev to be a baffoon who didn't deserve to represent the communists), so they promoted the Vietnamese to show their "revolutionary spirit." Lots of reasons were involved, but it's important to note that China had for a long time a much more passionate "supporter of the international revolution" sort of policy, while the USSR didn't really care about that, and prioritized defending its borders with buffer states. In the end, neither the US nor China really cared about owning Vietnam; they had their own motives, but world domination wasn't one of them.

Remember, neither the US nor the USSR really wanted to take over the world. They just both had this misguided belief that the other was going to do it, and felt the need to act in order to prevent that.

edit: removed a line I accidentally wrote twice

.
I need to stress the fact that we've gone off-topic here. Interesting discussion all in all. If you want to continue with it, either run it with me through PMs or start a thread about the cold war and European super-powers... IN THE OFF-TOPIC SUB-FORUM! MUAAHAHA!

TheIronRuler:

I need to stress the fact that we've gone off-topic here. Interesting discussion all in all. If you want to continue with it, either run it with me through PMs or start a thread about the cold war and European super-powers... IN THE OFF-TOPIC SUB-FORUM! MUAAHAHA!

Sonuva--

Alternately, you could just accept the superiority of my argument and get rid of all the nonsense about the US/USSR pacifying superpowers in the first post. It's pure conspiracy talk, I tell you!

Anyway, good chat and all. I declare myself the winner, unless you want to challenge that through PMs :D

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked