Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: RoadKingLarry on September 28, 2016, 09:18:39 AM
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/09/27/u-s-owes-black-people-reparations-for-a-history-of-racial-terrorism-says-u-n-panel/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/09/27/u-s-owes-black-people-reparations-for-a-history-of-racial-terrorism-says-u-n-panel/)
U.S. owes black people reparations for a history of ‘racial terrorism,’ says U.N. panel
The reparations could come in a variety of forms, according to the panel, including "a formal apology, health initiatives, educational opportunities ...
I'm pretty sure quite a bit of that has already been provided in a variety of forms but with out the label of "reparations" attached. Also "Affirmative Action" can be added to the list.
If they keep playing the same hand over and over eventually they will get results, I just don't think the results will be what they want them to be.
-
How many current UN members allow slavery?
-
How many current UN members allow slavery?
officially?
-
Meh, they do this sort of thing for the PR. Costs them nothing, people pay attention to them for a bit, they sound good to the 'right people'. Ignoring them is the best policy for these kinds of proposals, and the UN more generally.
-
White on Powder Blue makes an easy target in an urban environment, even better when ya get in the boonies.
-
White on Powder Blue makes an easy target in an urban environment, even better when ya get in the boonies.
Why is this a reoccurring meme, btw?
There's literally zero chance of "UN troops" invading. First off, the UN has zero troops. None, nodda. They occasionally have police but it's on a per country basis. UNMIK for example had police, and they were limited to very specific things. Mostly providing protection for officials because the local cops weren't exactly neutral or trustworthy. The UN has to ask for troops, and countries have to provide them. The original country still owns their troops. There may be a "UN commander", but they're still just XYZ country's officer that is nominally in charge of other countries' units by agreement. Zero difference from our NATO, non-NATO, non-UN or joint operations.
Not many foreign troops would voluntarily invade America. Actually, none aside from Russia or China. Only countries that essentially would be willing to shoot their own troops to maintain discipline COULD even land. That rules out most of the world. This isn't academic. I've discussed it with foreign troops/cops. To the last man, none would volunteer for occupation and virtually all of them would mutiny.
Secondly, said countries have to be willing to accept massive casualties. Which also rules out most of the world.
Third, they have to have the resources to fight a country of 300 plus million. Which rules out most of the world.
It's completely stupid, and yet persistently enduring, conspiracy theory. So, I'm actually curious. Besides "I don't like them, so they're capable of any evil I can imagine", why does that meme survive?
-
Why is this a reoccurring meme, btw?
There's literally zero chance of "UN troops" invading. First off, the UN has zero troops. None, nodda. They occasionally have police but it's on a per country basis. UNMIK for example had police, and they were limited to very specific things. Mostly providing protection for officials because the local cops weren't exactly neutral or trustworthy. The UN has to ask for troops, and countries have to provide them. The original country still owns their troops. There may be a "UN commander", but they're still just XYZ country's officer that is nominally in charge of other countries' units by agreement. Zero difference from our NATO, non-NATO, non-UN or joint operations.
Not many foreign troops would voluntarily invade America. Actually, none aside from Russia or China. Only countries that essentially would be willing to shoot their own troops to maintain discipline COULD even land. That rules out most of the world. This isn't academic. I've discussed it with foreign troops/cops. To the last man, none would volunteer for occupation and virtually all of them would mutiny.
Secondly, said countries have to be willing to accept massive casualties. Which also rules out most of the world.
Third, they have to have the resources to fight a country of 300 plus million. Which rules out most of the world.
It's completely stupid, and yet persistently enduring, conspiracy theory. So, I'm actually curious. Besides "I don't like them, so they're capable of any evil I can imagine", why does that meme survive?
Why? Al jones
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
Why is this a reoccurring meme, btw?
There's literally zero chance of "UN troops" invading. First off, the UN has zero troops. None, nodda. They occasionally have police but it's on a per country basis. UNMIK for example had police, and they were limited to very specific things. Mostly providing protection for officials because the local cops weren't exactly neutral or trustworthy. The UN has to ask for troops, and countries have to provide them. The original country still owns their troops. There may be a "UN commander", but they're still just XYZ country's officer that is nominally in charge of other countries' units by agreement. Zero difference from our NATO, non-NATO, non-UN or joint operations.
Not many foreign troops would voluntarily invade America. Actually, none aside from Russia or China. Only countries that essentially would be willing to shoot their own troops to maintain discipline COULD even land. That rules out most of the world. This isn't academic. I've discussed it with foreign troops/cops. To the last man, none would volunteer for occupation and virtually all of them would mutiny.
Secondly, said countries have to be willing to accept massive casualties. Which also rules out most of the world.
Third, they have to have the resources to fight a country of 300 plus million. Which rules out most of the world.
It's completely stupid, and yet persistently enduring, conspiracy theory. So, I'm actually curious. Besides "I don't like them, so they're capable of any evil I can imagine", why does that meme survive?
To add on to this...since most of the funding for the UN comes from the US how much money would we actually contribute to invade ourselves?
-
To add on to this...since most of the funding for the UN comes from the US how much money would we actually contribute to invade ourselves?
If we had an American president who was willing to fund our invasion, he'd probably also provide the troops for such an event.
HOWEVER, I'm rather betting the troops might be slightly resistant to such an order.
-
If we had an American president who was willing to fund our invasion, he'd probably also provide the troops for such an event.
HOWEVER, I'm rather betting the troops might be slightly completely resistant to such an order.
FIFY
-
FIFY
understatement
1. (noun) a statement that is restrained in ironic contrast to what might have been said
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika_(miniseries)
I recall this from when I was growing up. It was not as described and all the "patriots" ended up killed, captured, or suicided. I think the premise was that liberals voted to put all military forces under UN control and the Soviets engineered that Russian troops ended up in the US (surprise!). Thinking back on it, the whole show was a bit silly. However, I think it underestimates how foolish liberals can be.
-
It's just another way for me to say "The UN can munch my stained, sweat soaked, tighty-whities and anyone that they drag along for the ride too, especially if they set foot in MY yard." ("my yard" can be literal, my neighborhood, state or country depending on the situation at the time)
-
The sentiment is a good one and ought to be encouraged. And applied doubly to the ICC.
-
https://youtu.be/z7X2_V60YK8
-
It's just another way for me to say "The UN can munch my stained, sweat soaked, tighty-whities and anyone that they drag along for the ride too, especially if they set foot in MY yard." ("my yard" can be literal, my neighborhood, state or country depending on the situation at the time)
Why would the UN want to set foot in your yard? Let alone deploy troops there.
Is anyone familiar with a deployment of multinational troops under UN Security Council mandate that was unrelated to a war zone?
I hate the UN as much as anyone here. Possibly moreso from first hand experience with their corruption, incompetence and worldview. But fearing a "UN invasion" from non-existent troops is just so weird, it's always struck me as odd. Especially since it's a long standing staple of often self-embraced right wing stereotypes. Is it kinda like the blanket statement "taxation is theft", not meant to be taken in a literal sense but a rhetorical device to express that multinationalism is bad?
-
And will the UN also demand reparations from the African tribes that sold people into slavery as well?
-
In order to determine the damage done to the injured group, the reparations should be based on a comparison of the average standard of living of the people living in the USA today as compared to the standard of living of those currently living in their ancestral homelands.
(Hmmm . . . in that case, the reparations would be a negative number. >:D )
-
WOO-HOO!!!
Did they have a breakdown as to how much we descendants of (Irish) slaves will get and when we will we get our checks??
Wait, what?!?! I'm the wrong colour ?!?!?! But, but, but Slavery !!!!!
-
Why would the UN want to set foot in your yard? Let alone deploy troops there.
Is anyone familiar with a deployment of multinational troops under UN Security Council mandate that was unrelated to a war zone?
I hate the UN as much as anyone here. Possibly moreso from first hand experience with their corruption, incompetence and worldview. But fearing a "UN invasion" from non-existent troops is just so weird, it's always struck me as odd. Especially since it's a long standing staple of often self-embraced right wing stereotypes. Is it kinda like the blanket statement "taxation is theft", not meant to be taken in a literal sense but a rhetorical device to express that multinationalism is bad?
As far fetched and an impossibility that it is- just like a a zombie apocalypse, a lot of people look at UN troops/Zombies as the ultimate in reactive targets.
-
Has the UN ever been relevant going back to its beginning? There is little difference between it and the League of Nations. We just haven't had a full blown WWIII yet.