One of the UN's many problems is that they take people from tiny countries and give them access to power and money they would never have any chance of attaining otherwise. They eventually become corrupt and you end up with a joke of an organisation like we have today.

Is your underlying assumption that people from large countries are somehow more immune against becoming corrupt? If so, I am interested in why you would think that, because I can not see anything that suggests that people from large countries are less likely to become corrupt.

Also, is it the geographical size of the country, the size of the population or the size of the GNP that is more instrumental in regulating the tendency towards corruption?

1. Can the German Constitution (fabricated post WWII in Washington and London) NOT be amended?

2. This would seem to be a case of letting other nations do the heavy lifting.

1. amending the german constitution requires an absolute majority (both "houses"). something next to impossible in case of a warlike aggression.

2. let those who invaded with "willing" partners far away countries based on flimsy reasons do whatever lifting is required and let their willing and unwilling citizens finance these actions with their tax dollars/euros/pounds or whatever currency applies.

3. what kind of "heavy lifting" was done in Rwanda and Darfur (where more than a million were killed) by those who now get agitated and are frothing around their mouths because a few hundred protesters, who throw molotov cocktails and commit arson, were shot and killed?

4. how would the National Guard of The Commonwealth of Texas handle these protesters if it was Austin, Dallas or/and Houston?

One of the UN's many problems is that they take people from tiny countries and give them access to power and money they would never have any chance of attaining otherwise. They eventually become corrupt and you end up with a joke of an organisation like we have today.

Is your underlying assumption that people from large countries are somehow more immune against becoming corrupt? If so, I am interested in why you would think that, because I can not see anything that suggests that people from large countries are less likely to become corrupt.

Also, is it the geographical size of the country, the size of the population or the size of the GNP that is more instrumental in regulating the tendency towards corruption?

Take a guy from NYC and make him the undersecretary of poobah's. No big deal. He was probably a Assistant DA before the UN job and is used to mob guys trying to buy him out or rub him out.

He takes a cab to the UN instead of the Justice department. No big deal.

Take Mr. TeaAgainKoFumUhhow from a small village in Africa who has never owned a car or seen a Starbucks. Fly him to NYC and give him more money in one month than he has seen in his whole life.

1. Can the German Constitution (fabricated post WWII in Washington and London) NOT be amended?

2. This would seem to be a case of letting other nations do the heavy lifting.

1. amending the german constitution requires an absolute majority (both "houses"). something next to impossible in case of a warlike aggression.

2. let those who invaded with "willing" partners far away countries based on flimsy reasons do whatever lifting is required and let their willing and unwilling citizens finance these actions with their tax dollars/euros/pounds or whatever currency applies.

3. what kind of "heavy lifting" was done in Rwanda and Darfur (where more than a million were killed) by those who now get agitated and are frothing around their mouths because a few hundred protesters, who throw molotov cocktails and commit arson, were shot and killed?

4. how would the National Guard of The Commonwealth of Texas handle these protesters if it was Austin, Dallas or/and Houston?

1. This has been a handy excuse since 1946. Step up and be counted and stop hiding behind the excuse your constitution doesn't permit providing military assistance.

2. That is exactly what has been happening. These "flimsy reasons" killed more people on 9/11 than were killed at Pearl Harbor in 1941. Of course that is a drop in the bucket when compared to those numbers killed when Germany decides to invade.

3. There has certainly been no heavy lifting done in Rwanda or Darfur or anywhere else in the world by the German nation. I'm not frothing at the mouth nor am I demanding the US take any action. This is a European problem and should be addressed by those nations that are affected. The US doesn't need Libya but Germany's old partner in crime, Italy, certainly does. Perhaps a hand across the border from Germany might be appreciated by that old axis ally.

4. The State of Texas is not a Commonwealth. It entered the Union as a sovereign Republic and remains one of the 50 states to this date. Protests like this wouldn't happen in Texas unless the unions got involved. Texas wouldn't need the Texas National Guard. Look up..."One riot, one Ranger".

People are people and I doubt that the country of origin has much to do with the tendency toward corruption. I think that a lot of people from small, under developed countries have seen corruption as the vehicle by which people get ahead. They have also seen nothing happen to the corrupt.

Most people from developed countries on the other hand, have seen what happens to the corrupt. When they get caught, and they usually do, the price is big.

It's not the country, it's what we think will happen to us that matters. Doesn't matter if it's corruption or speeding.

2. let those who invaded with "willing" partners far away countries based on flimsy reasons do whatever lifting is required and let their willing and unwilling citizens finance these actions with their tax dollars/euros/pounds or whatever currency applies.

Unwilling American numbers has been running around 60% for a couple of years now......Not that we get a say in this land of the people by the people for the people

stop hiding behind the excuse your constitution doesn't...

killed more people on 9/11 than were killed...

Germany's old partner in crime, Italy...

Texas wouldn't need the Texas National Guard...

yada, yada, yada... yakety-yak.

One of the UN's many problems is that they take people from tiny countries and give them access to power and money they would never have any chance of attaining otherwise. They eventually become corrupt and you end up with a joke of an organisation like we have today.

Is your underlying assumption that people from large countries are somehow more immune against becoming corrupt? If so, I am interested in why you would think that, because I can not see anything that suggests that people from large countries are less likely to become corrupt.

Also, is it the geographical size of the country, the size of the population or the size of the GNP that is more instrumental in regulating the tendency towards corruption?

I don't see how you got from my post that large countries are "immune" to corruption? There's nothing in my post to suggest that at all.

I would say it is a fact that representatives from poor 3rd World countries are more likely to be corrupt than representatives from large rich ones. For one thing, corruption is part of their society, culture. Check this list: http://www.forbes.com/2010/11/01/most-currupt-countries-2010-business-beltway-currupt-countries.html

If you take someone like Kofi Annan, a little guy from Ghana. The highest level he could rise to in his poor, tiny home country is microscopic to the power and money he had access to as Secretary General. His hands are covered in oil & food.

I wonder how many of the UN Ambassadors from large, rich countries have taken a pay cut to represent their country? For how many of them does their next job have nothing to do with the connections they made while at the UN? For those from the small, poor countries, I bet the position was an upgrade and most get jobs through connections made while at the UN.

I would say it is a fact that representatives from poor 3rd World countries are more likely to be corrupt than representatives from large rich ones. For one thing, corruption is part of their society, culture.

Corruption is everywhere & size of country/power only indicates how powerful the results of the corruption will be.

3rd world countries may appear to be more of a in your face thus easily seen type of corruption but their effect is not felt as harshly as corruption based in larger more powerful countries.

Larger countries have refined corruption to an art form & employ tactics the smaller crooks can only dream of.

<br />

<br />

<br />One of the UN's many problems is that they take people from tiny countries and give them access to power and money they would never have any chance of attaining otherwise. They eventually become corrupt and you end up with a joke of an organisation like we have today.<br /><br /><br />

<br /><br />Is your underlying assumption that people from large countries are somehow more immune against becoming corrupt? If so, I am interested in why you would think that, because I can not see anything that suggests that people from large countries are less likely to become corrupt.<br /><br />Also, is it the geographical size of the country, the size of the population or the size of the GNP that is more instrumental in regulating the tendency towards corruption?<br />

<br /><br />I don't see how you got from my post that large countries are "<i>immune</i>" to corruption? There's nothing in my post to suggest that at all.<br /><br />I would say it is a fact that representatives from poor 3rd World countries <i><b>are more likely to be corrupt</b></i> than representatives from large rich ones. For one thing, corruption is part of their society, culture. Check this list: <a href='http://www.forbes.com/2010/11/01/most-currupt-countries-2010-business-beltway-currupt-countries.html' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://www.forbes.co...-countries.html</a><br /><br />If you take someone like Kofi Annan, a little guy from Ghana. The highest level he could rise to in his poor, tiny home country is microscopic to the power and money he had access to as Secretary General. His hands are covered in oil & food.<br /><br />I wonder how many of the UN Ambassadors from large, rich countries have taken a pay cut to represent their country? For how many of them does their next job have nothing to do with the connections they made while at the UN? For those from the small, poor countries, I bet the position was an upgrade and most get jobs through connections made while at the UN.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Now that you are explaining what you actually meant, it makes much more sense. As for the Oil for Food scandal and Annan, he may have been guilty of corruption, but if he was, the Volcker committee did not succeed in proving it.

It is also possible the Volker Committee chose not to prove it.

[2. That is exactly what has been happening. These "flimsy reasons" killed more people on 9/11 than were killed at Pearl Harbor in 1941. Of course that is a drop in the bucket when compared to those numbers killed when Germany decides to invade.

It is a drop in the bucket when compared to how many innocent lives (20 000 and growing) were lost in Bhopal where the Americans responsible are to this day protected by the US government.

And lets not even mention the American sponsored genocide in Gaza.

[2. That is exactly what has been happening. These "flimsy reasons" killed more people on 9/11 than were killed at Pearl Harbor in 1941. Of course that is a drop in the bucket when compared to those numbers killed when Germany decides to invade.

It is a drop in the bucket when compared to how many innocent lives (20 000 and growing) were lost in Bhopal where the Americans responsible are to this day protected by the US government.

And lets not even mention the American sponsored genocide in Gaza.

Just out of curiousity, what is your definition of genocide?

And lets not even mention the American sponsored genocide in Gaza.

Genocide is is wiping out a whole race. That is certainly not happening in Gaza.

And lets not even mention the American sponsored genocide in Gaza.

Genocide is is wiping out a whole race. That is certainly not happening in Gaza.

That is a very narrow and limited, (and generally unaccepted) definition. In fact it is more commonly " the policy of deliberately killing a nationality or ethnic group", with no mention of obliteration.

Indeed genocide is what the American sponsored acts of the Israelis are attempting in Gaza.

What nonsense:

gen·o·cide ) n. The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.

[2. That is exactly what has been happening. These "flimsy reasons" killed more people on 9/11 than were killed at Pearl Harbor in 1941. Of course that is a drop in the bucket when compared to those numbers killed when Germany decides to invade.

It is a drop in the bucket when compared to how many innocent lives (20 000 and growing) were lost in Bhopal where the Americans responsible are to this day protected by the US government.

And lets not even mention the American sponsored genocide in Gaza.

not to forget the 1½ million vietnamese "drops in the bucket" and a few hundred thousand maimed or killed by bombs and mines not only in Viet Nam but in Laos and Cambodia too. in some areas people are killed or losing limbs to this very day. but then these are just "gooks"... they don't count and neither do a couple of hundred thousand "sandniggers" count.

What nonsense:

gen·o·cide ) n. The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.

Not nonsense at all...as I said, your definition is narrow and generally unaccepted......so MANY online definitions that are not so limited as yours that it would be best if you just google the definition and read for yourself.

I offer one (being the legal definition)....and of particular note is the part where it says "in whole or in part".....

The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:

1) the

mental element,

meaning the

"intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and

2) the

physical element

which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include

both elements

to be called "genocide."

Well, that is two definitions that do not fit.

It is so tiresome. Every thread turns into a litany of the wrongs of America. What is the UN doing about Libya turns into how many Vietnamese were killed 40 years ago.

It is like being caged in a rodeo with a hoard of one trick ponies. Over and over again the same stuff.

I am usually a tolerant person. Even listening to the same old accusations and arguments time after time applied to any subject would not normally bother me. I looked deep into my mind to try and fathom why this boring repetition was getting to me.

I think I have figured it out. Beer. That is the answer for me, beer.

A long time ago I drank too much beer. I didn't drink during the day or while I worked nor did I ever get a DUI or have any other problems with law enforcement about my beer consumption but I will admit when I wasn't working after sundown there was always a beer in my hand.

My wife felt I drank too much beer and never stopped reminding me of the fact.

She could turn any topic of conversation into a Mark drinks too much beer conversation. She was a master of it. I could say I was going fishing and she would rail against the sins of fisherman drinking too much beer and drowning.

We could be discussing the kid's school and she would warn against fathers drinking too much beer and leaving the children homeless.

We could talk about a romantic evening dancing under the stars and she would say, “what woman would kiss a man with beer on his breath.”

In this thread Harcourt and Naam are reminding me subconsciously of my ex wife.

It is so tiresome. Every thread turns into a litany of the wrongs of America. What is the UN doing about Libya turns into how many Vietnamese were killed 40 years ago.

It is like being caged in a rodeo with a hoard of one trick ponies. Over and over again the same stuff.

I am usually a tolerant person. Even listening to the same old accusations and arguments time after time applied to any subject would not normally bother me. I looked deep into my mind to try and fathom why this boring repetition was getting to me.

I think I have figured it out. Beer. That is the answer for me, beer.

A long time ago I drank too much beer. I didn't drink during the day or while I worked nor did I ever get a DUI or have any other problems with law enforcement about my beer consumption but I will admit when I wasn't working after sundown there was always a beer in my hand.

My wife felt I drank too much beer and never stopped reminding me of the fact.

She could turn any topic of conversation into a Mark drinks too much beer conversation. She was a master of it. I could say I was going fishing and she would rail against the sins of fisherman drinking too much beer and drowning.

We could be discussing the kid's school and she would warn against fathers drinking too much beer and leaving the children homeless.

We could talk about a romantic evening dancing under the stars and she would say, “what woman would kiss a man with beer on his breath.”

In this thread Harcourt and Naam are reminding me subconsciously of my ex wife.

Good one Mark. That got a "laugh out loud" from me.

[2. That is exactly what has been happening. These "flimsy reasons" killed more people on 9/11 than were killed at Pearl Harbor in 1941. Of course that is a drop in the bucket when compared to those numbers killed when Germany decides to invade.

It is a drop in the bucket when compared to how many innocent lives (20 000 and growing) were lost in Bhopal where the Americans responsible are to this day protected by the US government.

And lets not even mention the American sponsored genocide in Gaza.

Just out of curiousity, what is your definition of genocide?

You know, if you and the fellow you are resondinding to just happened to be banned from posting in this forum I think it would be a lot better forum. Both of you are so hateful and non discerning in your ways that you've corrupted what might have otherwise been a very informative and educational forum.

• Posted Today, 14:14
  Harcourt, on 2011-03-04 12:06:55, said:
  chuckd, on 2011-03-02 21:23:59, said:
  [2. That is exactly what has been happening. These "flimsy reasons" killed more people on 9/11 than were killed at Pearl Harbor in 1941. Of course that is a drop in the bucket when compared to those numbers killed when Germany decides to invade.
  It is a drop in the bucket when compared to how many innocent lives (20 000 and growing) were lost in Bhopal where the Americans responsible are to this day protected by the US government.
  And lets not even mention the American sponsored genocide in Gaza.
  not to forget the 1½ million vietnamese "drops in the bucket" and a few hundred thousand maimed or killed by bombs and mines not only in Viet Nam but in Laos and Cambodia too. in some areas people are killed or losing limbs to this very day. but then these are just "gooks"... they don't count and neither do a couple of hundred thousand "sandniggers" count.
  

  Don't want to sound like Tutsi here, but God Dammit Naam, that's about the first post ever that's made my eyes water, because it's all true, which is a rarity in this particular forum.
  I am / was a great believer in American exceptionalism, just as many of my foreign friends and relatives are / were. It was a country that was created to be exceptional, It is exceptional no longer I'm afraid. Now, it either feeds on the countries it conquers (economically), or it feeds on its own captive populous. Just like every other fuc_king country.

In a late breaking development and confirming my suspicions that Cameron reads Thai Visa. He has backed off of his request for a no fly zone realizing after reading the above comments, that enforcing a no fly zone would mean Brit pilots at the very least being put in a combat situation in Libya.

I'd have thought the MoD would be jumping at the chance to give the new Euro-Fighter a proper run out. The British forces often take any opportunity to 'blood' their personnel.

[2. That is exactly what has been happening. These "flimsy reasons" killed more people on 9/11 than were killed at Pearl Harbor in 1941. Of course that is a drop in the bucket when compared to those numbers killed when Germany decides to invade.

It is a drop in the bucket when compared to how many innocent lives (20 000 and growing) were lost in Bhopal where the Americans responsible are to this day protected by the US government.

And lets not even mention the American sponsored genocide in Gaza.

not to forget the 1½ million vietnamese "drops in the bucket" and a few hundred thousand maimed or killed by bombs and mines not only in Viet Nam but in Laos and Cambodia too. in some areas people are killed or losing limbs to this very day. but then these are just "gooks"... they don't count and neither do a couple of hundred thousand "sandniggers" count.

is there any particular reason that you just posted the exact same thing that another member posted on the previous page?

[2. That is exactly what has been happening. These "flimsy reasons" killed more people on 9/11 than were killed at Pearl Harbor in 1941. Of course that is a drop in the bucket when compared to those numbers killed when Germany decides to invade.

It is a drop in the bucket when compared to how many innocent lives (20 000 and growing) were lost in Bhopal where the Americans responsible are to this day protected by the US government.

And lets not even mention the American sponsored genocide in Gaza.

not to forget the 1½ million vietnamese "drops in the bucket" and a few hundred thousand maimed or killed by bombs and mines not only in Viet Nam but in Laos and Cambodia too. in some areas people are killed or losing limbs to this very day. but then these are just "gooks"... they don't count and neither do a couple of hundred thousand "sandniggers" count.

is there any particular reason that you just posted the exact same thing that another member posted on the previous page?

UG:

He edited his original post. The tears in his eyes must have blurred his vision.

I'm having the same problem.

is there any particular reason that you just posted the exact same thing that another member posted on the previous page?

is there any particular reason why you can't come up with something relevant? perhaps the usual rightwing song which was sung in this forum at least a dozen times "we too have rights! the Germans killed x millions that justifies that we kill a million or two".

Is that supposed to be "relevant"?

The Germans certainly have as much to be guilty about as any nation that ever existed, but you go on and on and on about all America's sins like they are unique in that regard.

is there any particular reason that you just posted the exact same thing that another member posted on the previous page?

is there any particular reason why you can't come up with something relevant? perhaps the usual rightwing song which was sung in this forum at least a dozen times "we too have rights! the Germans killed x millions that justifies that we kill a million or two".

How does it go again? Oh yes, I remember...

yada, yada, yada... yakety-yak.

Since you mentioned relevance, this is the 5th post you have made on this thread. NONE of which have been relevant to the topic.