Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Its the stigma that for every major UN mission that happens the USA provides the bulk

That's not really particularly true. The U.S. acts unilaterally pretty often and we provide the bulk of all NATO missions. Our actual contribution to UN operations isn't particularly big but then actual UN operations aren't particularly big as a generality.

As long as our percentage contributed outstrips our percentage of contribution to sex scandals and what have you, I think we are winning the game.

dogma wrote:In other news, US citizens continue to misunderstand the UN.

To be fair, citizens of most every country continue to fail to understand the UN. It's just that people in the US are probably the most hostile to the organisation, and this sticks out as very strange, given the US is far and away the country most able to bend the US to its POV.

I mean, having a funding amendment created that says 'our country and only our country gets to pay less than everyone else'... and then complaining that you still pay the most money is really quite incredible.

It's the same as with the foreign aid budget.

Both allocations are tiny compared to overall US government spending, and get completely disproportionate attention from critics.

Jihadin wrote:Its the stigma that for every major UN mission that happens the USA provides the bulk

Right now there's 10,000 Pakistani, and about the same Bangladeshi soldiers in peacekeeping actions around the world. India have another 9,000. All up there's about 100,000 peacekeepers in actions around the world. To that total the US has contributed less than 100.

So, no, peacekeeping operations do not need US to provide the bulk. I suspect you'll try and weasel out of that by saying 'major', but right now those operations include Southern Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and will hopefully see a major deployment in Syria.

I know most Americans are only aware of UN operations involving US troops, and that is understandable to a large extent, but that doesn't mean the operations you aren't aware of aren't happening.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:It's the same as with the foreign aid budget.

Both allocations are tiny compared to overall US government spending, and get completely disproportionate attention from critics.

Yeah, and the critics in both cases tend to be the same people.

sebster wrote:

dogma wrote:In other news, US citizens continue to misunderstand the UN.

To be fair, citizens of most every country continue to fail to understand the UN. It's just that people in the US are probably the most hostile to the organisation, and this sticks out as very strange, given the US is far and away the country most able to bend the US to its POV.

I mean, having a funding amendment created that says 'our country and only our country gets to pay less than everyone else'... and then complaining that you still pay the most money is really quite incredible.

Remember that discussion I had the other day about a fundamental lack of respect for reality in American politics? This is one of those.

GalacticDefender wrote:The only real thing Obama has done concerning guns was pass a bill making it LEGAL to carry guns in a National Park. Yup, Obama helped pass along a pro-gun law.

Hey Conservatives, us Liberals don't want your dang guns. In fact, I don't actually personally know any Liberals that don't own at least one gun. I my self own several, though mainly for their historical value, as well as plinkin'.

No . There's the matter of an AG who supports gun control and bans. There's the matter of forced reporting for multiple purchases along the border, the matter of shipping thousands of firearms off to cartels and then shortly thereafter claiming 70% of all identified firearms were from the US, and that6 we need more regulation and control on the US side

ShumaGorath wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Its the stigma that for every major UN mission that happens the USA provides the bulk

That's not really particularly true. The U.S. acts unilaterally pretty often and we provide the bulk of all NATO missions. Our actual contribution to UN operations isn't particularly big but then actual UN operations aren't particularly big as a generality.

WEll for one, that would require the UN to be relevant in most cases.

Which it isn't.

I may be wrong, but didn't Clinton pull the plug on US troops in the UN after the whole black hawk down thing?

Wow, its election time and someone claims that the Democratic candidate wants to take away everyone's guns!

I never saw THAT coming.

I may be wrong, but didn't Clinton pull the plug on US troops in the UN after the whole black hawk down thing?

Yes. US Forces will not fall under UN command

Frazzled wrote:

GalacticDefender wrote:The only real thing Obama has done concerning guns was pass a bill making it LEGAL to carry guns in a National Park. Yup, Obama helped pass along a pro-gun law.

Hey Conservatives, us Liberals don't want your dang guns. In fact, I don't actually personally know any Liberals that don't own at least one gun. I my self own several, though mainly for their historical value, as well as plinkin'.

No . There's the matter of an AG who supports gun control and bans. There's the matter of forced reporting for multiple purchases along the border, the matter of shipping thousands of firearms off to cartels and then shortly thereafter claiming 70% of all identified firearms were from the US, and that6 we need more regulation and control on the US side

Obama didn't really have that much to do with Fast and Furious. The reason he isn't releasing the documents is because the Romney'ers will jump all over the stupid ideas that will be revealed and say Obama was the one who wrote it. It was a horrendously dumb idea, but definitely not some sort of conspiracy against the 2nd amendment. I'll not be fearing for my guns any time soon. It's the constant push to ban violent video games that worries me more (it's a fething art form!), and that is something both parties try to push.

Also, why can't the two parties agree on anything? I mean seriously, it's gotten to the point where both parties care more about taking stabs at each other than they care about the actual American public.

Would it be the same if the situation was reverse?

Are you going to try to suggest, for example, that Bush did not hide things from the US electorate, nevermind from the US populace?

I didn't think you were allowed to do that, Jihadin.

Wel if your refering to he lied to get us into Iraq...well...he wasn't impeach was he and Demo didn't press the issue on it did they since they voted for military operations looking at the same evidence he looked at. Still though things like Delta Force...Area 51...are not confirmed. Holder has no one to blame but himself. He screwed up the hearing by not being prepared for it. Did he not?

Jihadin wrote:Wel if your refering to he lied to get us into Iraq...well...he wasn't impeach was he and Demo didn't press the issue on it

You're talking as if that is relevant. The incompetence of the Democratic party is well established.

Melissia wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Wel if your refering to he lied to get us into Iraq...well...he wasn't impeach was he and Demo didn't press the issue on it

You're talking as if that is relevant. The incompetence of the Democratic party is well established.

Something being well-established doesn't make it irrelevant. Sometimes it makes it even more relevant.

Just because the Democratic party didn't object doesn't mean that somehow Bush wasn't hiding things from people.

It just means that their game was off, like it has been for ages...

And we all have our off days. Like this morning I lost my bearing due to Frazz and the roman candle armed weiner

Jihadin wrote:Would it be the same if the situation was reverse?

Replace guns with weed or gays and it's the same gak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:Wel if your refering to he lied to get us into Iraq...well...he wasn't impeach was he and Demo didn't press the issue on it did they since they voted for military operations looking at the same evidence he looked at. Still though things like Delta Force...Area 51...are not confirmed. Holder has no one to blame but himself. He screwed up the hearing by not being prepared for it. Did he not?

The hearing shouldn't of existed. It was a purely political dog and pony show to rouse up sheep in the conservative base who will froth at the mouth form any mention of gun laws. The whole things an idiotic waste of time and money (something the conservatives are kings at).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Wel if your refering to he lied to get us into Iraq...well...he wasn't impeach was he and Demo didn't press the issue on it

You're talking as if that is relevant. The incompetence of the Democratic party is well established.

The effort to impeach would of been a clusterfeth failure and it would of made them look terrible and unpatriotic. They made the right call.

I was more talking about them not pressing the issue. The impeachment thing was ridiculous, as you said.

Melissia wrote:I was more talking about them not pressing the issue. The impeachment thing was ridiculous, as you said.

Whats the point of pressing an outgoing presidency on things that they can't really be charged for? The public wasn't going to react the way you want them to Mellissa, most didn't and don't care. Most can't find the countries we invaded on a map and think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. The justification for the wars has never been a particularly strong issue. Just the financial cost and loss of prestige. People rarely base their vote on human rights issues and with the economy tanking they had all they needed to sail into the White House.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:I was more talking about them not pressing the issue. The impeachment thing was ridiculous, as you said.

Whats the point of pressing an outgoing presidency on things that they can't really be charged for? The public wasn't going to react the way you want them to Mellissa, most didn't and don't care. Most can't find the countries we invaded on a map and think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. The justification for the wars has never been a particularly strong issue. Just the financial cost and loss of prestige. People rarely base their vote on human rights issues and with the economy tanking they had all they needed to sail into the White House.

But we won. So check, and mate.

Bromsy wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:I was more talking about them not pressing the issue. The impeachment thing was ridiculous, as you said.

Whats the point of pressing an outgoing presidency on things that they can't really be charged for? The public wasn't going to react the way you want them to Mellissa, most didn't and don't care. Most can't find the countries we invaded on a map and think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. The justification for the wars has never been a particularly strong issue. Just the financial cost and loss of prestige. People rarely base their vote on human rights issues and with the economy tanking they had all they needed to sail into the White House.

But we won. So check, and mate.

During bushes re-election we were still looking for WMDs.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Bromsy wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:I was more talking about them not pressing the issue. The impeachment thing was ridiculous, as you said.

Whats the point of pressing an outgoing presidency on things that they can't really be charged for? The public wasn't going to react the way you want them to Mellissa, most didn't and don't care. Most can't find the countries we invaded on a map and think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. The justification for the wars has never been a particularly strong issue. Just the financial cost and loss of prestige. People rarely base their vote on human rights issues and with the economy tanking they had all they needed to sail into the White House.

But we won. So check, and mate.

During bushes re-election we were still looking for WMDs.

Check and Mate

Oh god, they are following the same route as Australia....

Jihadin wrote:And we all have our off days. Like this morning I lost my bearing due to Frazz and the roman candle armed weiner

It is but a taste of the Dashshundskrieg to come. We're now testing cherry bomb assault wieners.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I may be wrong, but didn't Clinton pull the plug on US troops in the UN after the whole black hawk down thing?

US deployment in UN operations has always been under the strict condition that US troops will not operate under the command of a foreign general. So if US troops are deployed then there can't be any non-US senior rank above them.

Mogadishu basically showed that the possible negative fall out of US troops getting killed for the sake of peacekeeping is a bad political risk, so while there was no formal decision to never, ever commit US troops to a peacekeeping operation in serious numbers again, the political reality is that no president will do it.

Add those two things together, and you see that the US being willing to send maybe some troops in a low risk, low profile situation, but have no senior official telling them what to do, and US involvement in UN operations becomes more hassle than its worth. Especially when you just send Bangladeshi troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Remember that discussion I had the other day about a fundamental lack of respect for reality in American politics? This is one of those.

The US has it pretty bad, but it's by no means a purely US issue. I mean, rockerbikie is Australian, and he just posted this;
"Oh god, they are following the same route as Australia...."

Indifference to reality affects us all.

darkPrince010 wrote:Lol.

2. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).

Given that any unauthorized firearms will, under this law/set of laws, be owned by the people mentioned above in 1, this is again fine by me. Plus it'll punish people who do dumb gak like convert flare guns for shotgun shells or try and home-build their guns.

Lol indeed. It is not now nor has it ever been illegal to home build a gun.

3. Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).

Fine by me personally, although I appreciate that people are upset that it bans any and all magazine-based semi-automatics (Especially since I can't think of a one-shot pistol that doesn't use black powder and a firing cap or flint :/ ).

Really? Without dipping too deep into the well I can think of one extremely popular single shot pistol available in virtually any modern caliber imaginable. There's fearmongering about the gun ignorant left and actually exemplifying it for all to see.

AustonT wrote:

darkPrince010 wrote:Lol.

2. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).

Given that any unauthorized firearms will, under this law/set of laws, be owned by the people mentioned above in 1, this is again fine by me. Plus it'll punish people who do dumb gak like convert flare guns for shotgun shells or try and home-build their guns.

Lol indeed. It is not now nor has it ever been illegal to home build a gun.

Selling a gun is when the vast majority of regulations come into play isn't it?

I assume you mean selling a home built gun?
If so then: No.
There are somethings you can do to protect yourself as the builder like serialzing but as long as you are not manufacturing on any scale for profit without appropriate licenses. It cannot violate obvious regulation like say anything requiring a tax stamp. There are several books on home building fire arms and websites and forums devoted to it if you are interested I can PM you a couple. Maybe not like right away I'm about to pack it in.