Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

[lektrode]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

Spot on, Mark.

second.
and certified.

tho its somewhat distressing that we're getting into a discussion with serious implications with respect to our people on the front lines, in full view of who knows who might be watching and while its bad enuf our internal division and other dirty laundry is on display, IMHO these sort of posts are potentially dangererous to not only our own vital national interests, but our allies as well...

and tho there are clearly differences of opinion on the effectiveness of current US 'foreign policy' methinks we (as in us americans) are not well served by arguing this stuff with those who's interests may not be aligned with our own, esp in such a public forum, esp one populated by those who appear as educated/experienced/employed in the upper reaches of our gov and society as (some of) us obviously are...

in other words, its like having a 'domestic disturbance' in which the participants are yelling/screaming loud enuf as to inform the entire neighborhood of ones private affairs best left unannounced.

but hey - some of these POV are fascinating and reveal quite a bit of the philosphical tendencies of those typing.

[cbr]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

excellent post mark,

the fundamental problem is the inability to elect accomplished, competent individuals to lead in the US. the fractured electorate, enfranchisement of any moron to vote, whether a productive member of society or not, the lack of real debate or available information on candidates, and the abuse of information and campaign rules by highly financed interests has created this situation. the obama administration is the epitomy of the results.

you have to go back a long way to find anyone qualified to be president of the us in the office.

nixon was a political hack

ford was a crony

carter at least had an interesting military career and some experience, but just lacked good judgment and leadership qualities

reagan was somewhat of a cook, but at least had some years experience at governorship, and generally made pragmatic appointments

bush 1 was a fairly accomplished, and experienced, if sheltered, individual by the time he came to be president, probably the most qualified person since eisenhower. mixed results.

clinton was a great politician and political crony but failed to care about or further the interest of the u.s. at all, squandering the greatest opportunity in the history of mankind. the world was truly his oyster if he had paid attention.

bush 2 was a fairly low brow daddy's boy, but at least he was decisive and made appointments who were also decisive. poor decisions were made, focus perhaps misguided, and execution flawed, but at least their goals were clear and were what they thought were in the best interests of the u.s.

obama is simply the result of electing a person, with his appointments, who have never in their life accomplished anything, faced reality, worked against competent adversaries, or made hard choices and had to live with results.

you can't take someone with no leadership skills, administrative experience, or practical experience, and who does not have any realistic interest of the united states as his goal, and expect coherent policy that will further us interests. You can't expect any result that is favorable to the u.s. in any way. Then add an anti - individualist, international socialist authoritarian agenda driven by a corrupt chicago political machine, polished with fringes from the most detached liberal academia in the world, and pushed by an entrenched international financial elite, and you get the disaster we currently have in office.

it is truly worst of all worlds.

the health care issues, complete breakdown of international relations, lack of coherence in energy and mideast policy, failre to even engage latin american with any policy at all, the financial industry mismanagement, iraq neglect, afghanistan fumbling, and libya fiasco all highlight the worst possible scenario for the leadership of the us.

they could not possibly do any worse, except maybe if they accidentally launch all the nations' stratnukes at random targets while attempting to order a pizza at the whitehouse.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

Sad to say, that some Americans think their government can spit in the world's face and do whatever it wants to, as if there was no such thing as binding treaties and international agreements..... This is a type of imperialism.

This may be news to Texans: The U.S. government has binding free-trade agreements with many countries, including Canada and Mexico. Tax treatments of nationals and dual-nationals are determined by those international agreements. The U.S. government will abide by those written agreements regardless of whatever other U.S. laws might say.

The bottomline according to the CRA in Surrey, BC is that international agreements are international law, and international law is sacrosanct. That was the exact word the CRA used, sacrosanct, and they had me site and write specific parts of the U.S./Canada tax treaty and the dates of initial signing and dates of re-signing.

The issue came as to which country, Canada or America gets to tax the world income, first. If your primary residence is Canada, then Canada gets to tax the world income first and the U.S. gets to tax only U.S.- source income but not the entire pot of world income......... So this is quite important stuff. (Actually, George Bush Jr. did a few good things.)

This puts an end to double-taxation between Canada and America, and all of the games that used to be played in taxation. Whatever you pay in double-taxation, you get a dollar-for-dollar foreign tax credit on.

[tsetsefly]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

excellent post mark,

the fundamental problem is the inability to elect accomplished, competent individuals to lead in the US. the fractured electorate, enfranchisement of any moron to vote, whether a productive member of society or not, the lack of real debate or available information on candidates, and the abuse of information and campaign rules by highly financed interests has created this situation. the obama administration is the epitomy of the results.

you have to go back a long way to find anyone qualified to be president of the us in the office.

nixon was a political hack

ford was a crony

carter at least had an interesting military career and some experience, but just lacked good judgment and leadership qualities

reagan was somewhat of a cook, but at least had some years experience at governorship, and generally made pragmatic appointments

bush 1 was a fairly accomplished, and experienced, if sheltered, individual by the time he came to be president, probably the most qualified person since eisenhower. mixed results.

clinton was a great politician and political crony but failed to care about or further the interest of the u.s. at all, squandering the greatest opportunity in the history of mankind. the world was truly his oyster if he had paid attention.

bush 2 was a fairly low brow daddy's boy, but at least he was decisive and made appointments who were also decisive. poor decisions were made, focus perhaps misguided, and execution flawed, but at least their goals were clear and were what they thought were in the best interests of the u.s.

obama is simply the result of electing a person, with his appointments, who have never in their life accomplished anything, faced reality, worked against competent adversaries, or made hard choices and had to live with results.

you can't take someone with no leadership skills, administrative experience, or practical experience, and who does not have any realistic interest of the united states as his goal, and expect coherent policy that will further us interests. You can't expect any result that is favorable to the u.s. in any way. Then add an anti - individualist, international socialist authoritarian agenda driven by a corrupt chicago political machine, polished with fringes from the most detached liberal academia in the world, and pushed by an entrenched international financial elite, and you get the disaster we currently have in office.

it is truly worst of all worlds.

the health care issues, complete breakdown of international relations, lack of coherence in energy and mideast policy, failre to even engage latin american with any policy at all, the financial industry mismanagement, iraq neglect, afghanistan fumbling, and libya fiasco all highlight the worst possible scenario for the leadership of the us.

they could not possibly do any worse, except maybe if they accidentally launch all the nations' stratnukes at random targets while attempting to order a pizza at the whitehouse.

+4 to Mark and +1 here, I cant agree more with what yous said about Obama. My feeling has always been he is much more worried about bieng liked that about taking any decisive action. Gadahfi could of been executing women and children on live tv and h Obama would of not intervened unless the UN and by extension "the world" would have given him the go to do it. He is not even a good politician, he is just a good speaker with a nice smile but no balls to make tought decisions. When he saw how unpopular health reform was with the right he tried to "privatize"it as much as he could by doing what he said he woulnd't do, making a a deal with big pharma and the insurance companies. That is why we also see the complete lack of change! in ways of governing from the Bush era, I just htink he really had no clue who to rely on, case in point, the bailouts. He essentially counted on the same circle of people as Bush did.

[cbr]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

Hey, Steve, I hate to burst your bubble but international law is complete and total bullshit... there is no such thing at all! Sacrosanct?!!!?

Citizens obey the laws of their country because either 1) they agree they are morally correct, or 2) they fear incarceration or fine if they disobey (and fear that they will likely be caught).

Countries participate in or obey international laws purely because 1) they agree they are in their own best interest, right now; or 2) they fear economic retaliation, which ultimately is TOTALLY DEPENDENT UPON THE MILITARY REALITIES IN PLACE, or instead they fear DIRECT MILITARY CONSEQUENCES.

Personal internal morals or perceived incentives, or in the alternative fear of physical violence, are the ONLY human motivators, either of citizens or world leaders. Laws only exist to give some predictability for people to make these value judgments.

There is no such thing as a sacrosanct law, ESPECIALLY in the international context!

The world has been extremely fortunate that since 1945 the US, which despite its faults remains the most benevolent and altruistic great power in human history, has held a worldwide military veto power on air and sea commerce the entire time, and a military monopoly since 1989. You think its COINCIDENCE that world commerce exploded when the only credible threat to the US air, space, and naval power collapsed (soviet union)?

This benevolent military auspice is THE ONLY BACKBONE supporting the gobalization and growth of the world economy during the entire period. When it ends, soon after will follow the end this 'golden era' of globalization, barring a true energy and resource revolution.

The US Constitution and federal system USED to work because US leaders, state leaders, and citizens personally believed in it, and citizens and states remained a credible physical threat to federal power.

The technological evolution of the federal military and intelligence services, along with the concentration of power back into oligarchical multistate power nodes has changed that dynamic; this, along with the erosion of the personal morals of the members of the financial and political classes, has created the itulip - predicted conditions. It has also created the crisis in US leadership in all categories.

[Jay]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

Exactly the way I see it too! Don't trust the Americans. Take care of business and ask for forgiveness later. Guarantee this turns into more fuel to " oust the Crusaders" too.

I'm still kind of surprised this is happening. I actually wasn't sure which side we'd be on, considering our support of other "tin pot dictators" over there. Anyone other than Qaddafi, regardless of how many being killed, and we would not be doing this I think. This has to embolden those in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, etc. America is on the side of freedom now!

I was holding off on this but now it seems appropriate.

WARNING: Language

BOOKS!

....

Awesome. I love that video every time I see it.

[c1ue]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

The world has been extremely fortunate that since 1945 the US, which despite its faults remains the most benevolent and altruistic great power in human history, has held a worldwide military veto power on air and sea commerce the entire time, and a military monopoly since 1989. You think its COINCIDENCE that world commerce exploded when the only credible threat to the US air, space, and naval power collapsed (soviet union)?

Do you have actual data behind this statement?

Because I sure don't see any trend as what you imply.

There has been an explosion, but it had far more to do with US outsourcing to China and India than anything else - and nothing whatsoever to do with the military.

As for the benevolence - I guess it is all a question of POV.

The US, as has been well documented by Dr. Michael Hudson in "Super Imperialism", had embarked on a program of international lending to support its own economy - using World Bank and IMF development loans to sell American foodstuffs and machinery to rebuilding Europe/Japan post WW II, and to developing nations afterwards.

Strangely, the US benevolence doesn't seem to extend to Somali piracy. This is a phenomenon which was not significant in the Cold War era.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

These Republicans, particularly Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, squandered much of America's wealth on an absurd Cold War with the U.S.S.R....... And what came out of that Cold War? Nothing!

My grandfather hated John Foster Dulles like poison. He would swear a long list of explitives when the name John Foster Dulles was mentioned in the news in the 1950s...... That was my early childhood in Duluth.

When my grandfather wrote letters to the U.S. Senate alleging that leading nazis were escaping justice in Latin America or in America, he was laughed-off, and his letters were dismissed. Those were the days when Mengele, Klaus Barbe, and Adolf Eichman were still to be uncovered and having a gay olde time esconced in the Western World as refugees from Stalin.

[oddlots]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

Actually, if there are any lessons to be learned so far from Libya, it is all on the 'tin pot dictator' side:

The West isn't your friend. No matter how you reform, they'll get you in the end if given an opening.

So if you get a rebellion, smack it right away with all your armored forces and aircraft.

Don't be restrained, crush rebellions ASAP and with all possible force.

Don't let the 'UN' or the 'Forces of Democracy' have the time to send in special forces to target all your installations.

Don't rely on what any of the West says, it is all just posturing.

Don't rely on equal or greater unrest in other tin pot dictator nations.

Don't rely on happy economic setups with western multinationals, with cooperative agreements on trade, etc etc.

Just do 'it' as quickly as possible.

I really think this is a very static and therefore IMHO deficient view of the situation.

The West isn't your friend. No matter how you reform, they'll get you in the end if given an opening.

Why personalise it in this manner? Who cares about Gadaffi the leader and who befriends or betrays him. We toss out and herald in politicians like strippers. None of us care about their feelings. If western leaders suck up to you when there seems no credible alternative power to deal with in the country and then change sides when there's a popular uprising well then maybe you shouldn't have treated those "held at your pleasure" (to channel Oscar Wilde) with such ruthlessness.

So if you get a rebellion, smack it right away with all your armored forces and aircraft.

So if you get a rebellion, smack it right away with all your armored forces and aircraft.

I don't see a lot of restraint in Gadaffi's actions so, unless you are making an arch reference to an imagined uprising against by Gadaffi against his purported sponsors (presumably the fickle West), he seems to be following your suggested script and still likely losing.

I suppose the point of your comments is to sat that the masters - the West - expect these guys to manage their 'hood like a capo and,if they don't, they'll be dealt out the expected justice.

I don't think that explains a lot here. It would have been far better for western interests if Gadaffi had taken a more co-optive stance a la Egypt's establishment. You can't blame Westerners for the fact that he didn't. But you also can't assume that he had this option. My sense is that his past actions in the last 30 years made any notion of engaging him in a meaningful dialogue preposterous.

[lektrode]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

BOOKS!

....

Awesome. I love that video every time I see it.

no offense to a fellow tuliper, but...

personally? eye find it incredably disrepectful and think it depicts our dedicated, professional military personell in a preposterously degrading/shameful fashion - and merely its existence confirms the infantile and subversive mind of its 'creator'
and the more this kinda shit makes the rounds on the web (or hey aint this a real boss abortion to brag about on yer facebook page), the worse we as americans look to the rest of the world... it wont be long now before even our allies think of us the way obama... ooops, sorry eh - the way osama & crew think of us: The Problem to be exterminated at their first opportunity - and when they eventually find a way past our homeland "security" not only will you be sorry you ever disparaged our military professionals, YER GOLD WILL BE WORTHLESS too.

just sayin.

[c1ue]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

Why personalise it in this manner? Who cares about Gadaffi the leader and who befriends or betrays him. We toss out and herald in politicians like strippers. None of us care about their feelings. If western leaders suck up to you when there seems no credible alternative power to deal with in the country and then change sides when there's a popular uprising well then maybe you shouldn't have treated those "held at your pleasure" (to channel Oscar Wilde) with such ruthlessness.

I don't think Qaddafi is a fine human being, or that he's being screwed over.

Merely pointing out what his fellow tyrants will perceive from what's happened/happening in Libya.

I don't see a lot of restraint in Gadaffi's actions so, unless you are making an arch reference to an imagined uprising against by Gadaffi against his purported sponsors (presumably the fickle West), he seems to be following your suggested script and still likely losing.

I disagree. He didn't roll his tanks until it was clear the UN was going to approve action against him.

The lessons other tyrants will draw from this situation is to just roll 'em.

As for following "my" script - it is far too late for that.

The time to roll 'em was 2 weeks or more before the UN resolution.

Do a Tiananmen, not a Tahrir.

It would have been far better for western interests if Gadaffi had taken a more co-optive stance a la Egypt's establishment.

This isn't about what's good for the western interests. What the western interests want is very simple: cheap oil and no questions asked.

The interesting part of this situation is that there is now a new factor in that equation.

[BigBagel]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

Sad to say, that some Americans think their government can spit in the world's face and do whatever it wants to, as if there was no such thing as binding treaties and international agreements..... This is a type of imperialism.

This may be news to Texans: The U.S. government has binding free-trade agreements with many countries, including Canada and Mexico. Tax treatments of nationals and dual-nationals are determined by those international agreements. The U.S. government will abide by those written agreements regardless of whatever other U.S. laws might say.

The bottomline according to the CRA in Surrey, BC is that international agreements are international law, and international law is sacrosanct. That was the exact word the CRA used, sacrosanct, and they had me site and write specific parts of the U.S./Canada tax treaty and the dates of initial signing and dates of re-signing.

The issue came as to which country, Canada or America gets to tax the world income, first. If your primary residence is Canada, then Canada gets to tax the world income first and the U.S. gets to tax only U.S.- source income but not the entire pot of world income......... So this is quite important stuff. (Actually, George Bush Jr. did a few good things.)

This puts an end to double-taxation between Canada and America, and all of the games that used to be played in taxation. Whatever you pay in double-taxation, you get a dollar-for-dollar foreign tax credit on.

Treaties must be ratified by the US Senate with a 2/3 majority. No ratification, no treaty. There is no ratified treaty that binds us to attack Libya.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

As I recall, the U.S. Senate was hard at work everyday, for years, during the George Bush Jr. Administration ratifying free trade agreements. To that extent, George Bush Jr. was a good president.

What I didn't like about George Bush Jr. was his education policy which treated teachers like serfs. Things really got off-track in the public schools under George Bush Jr. Everything was timed tests, test-taking skills, teach to the test, zero-thinking, convergent-thinking, rote memorization, and English-only....... Terrible!

[flintlock]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

no offense to a fellow tuliper, but...

personally? eye find it incredably disrepectful and think it depicts our dedicated, professional military personell in a preposterously degrading/shameful fashion - and merely its existence confirms the infantile and subversive mind of its 'creator'
and the more this kinda shit makes the rounds on the web (or hey aint this a real boss abortion to brag about on yer facebook page), the worse we as americans look to the rest of the world... it wont be long now before even our allies think of us the way obama... ooops, sorry eh - the way osama & crew think of us: The Problem to be exterminated at their first opportunity - and when they eventually find a way past our homeland "security" not only will you be sorry you ever disparaged our military professionals, YER GOLD WILL BE WORTHLESS too.

just sayin.

I can understand you seeing it that way if you didn't actually watch the movie. It may surprise you that the creators are actually somewhat conservative leaning. They don't like either extreme but say they really despise Liberals. The movie pokes fun at anti war liberals as well as hawkish conservatives. I don't remember anything particularly anti military per se, but perhaps there was. I come from a military family. My Dad and all my uncles ( 8) all served. Once uncle fought at Tarawa. Another was a Cobra pilot shot down in Cambodia. My dad served in Korea as a heavy weapons platoon leader. I consider myself a military historian. I've always supported and thought highly of our military, at least at the unit level. Its the political leadership and warmongering that the movie pokes fun at. Not the service people themselves. Hence the subtitle, "World Police".

Come on, you're a smart guy. You have to know that what our military is being asked to do is NOT what most of these guys signed up for. And if answering truthfully, most would tell you they had economic reasons for joining as well as any sense of duty. Most I know tell me they have conflicting feelings about the way things have been going for the last 10 years or so. One Apache pilot I know was downright pissed off he was being asked to leave his family and go to Iraq for such BS. Most dutifully go where ordered, but don't for a moment think they all are 100% behind it and think its the right thing to do. Not by a long shot.

This situation in Libya is EXACTLY what the movie was talking about. Show me the "national defense" aspects of this situation? Our military personnel are being misused as muscle for global corporations and political hacks. The longer this goes on, the more apparent it will become.

[DSpencer]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

The bottomline according to the CRA in Surrey, BC is that international agreements are international law, and international law is sacrosanct.

There's no reason to spend a lot of time debating Starving Steve on this kind of thing. It just distracts from more meaningful debate.

"according to the Canada Revenue Agency"? The CRA is now the authority on the sovereignty of the US vs international law regarding the use of its military? That's the "bottomline"? Why take this seriously?