To label those who defended America as "war dogs," deny them any legitimacy in modern America, and then somehow act sympathetic about a "landmine-ridden country"—all while intentionally or accidentally failing to mention the people who actually laid those mines (or even expressing regret that they're gone)—and to say all this immediately following the verdict for Gotovina... I guess, maybe, what did you really expect? hollowtrucker77's post probably just shielded you from your own impulses. You should probably be grateful for that. ☕
Sandra Gonzalez3 said:Basically—expansion is a pipe dream. I'd bet the UN falls apart before some other country ever gets a seat on the Security Council.
The arguments for making changes seem quite compelling, and I think almost all the permanent members essentially agree with them. The current structure of the UN seems to freeze global relations exactly as they were on May 8, 1945—and since the world has changed so much since then, I guess we are getting closer to a day where the UN might become an obstacle to further global security if it doesn't adapt. Back in 1945, India wasn't even an independent nation, and the United Kingdom was still managing an Empire where the sun never set. Furthermore, given how integrated the European Union is becoming, there might not be a strong reason for two of its members to also hold permanent seats on the Security Council (which is perhaps the strongest argument against expanding to include someone like Germany). There is also the complicated question regarding Islam, not just as a religion but as a distinct system of social values—much like how communism functioned in 1945 and granted the USSR and China their permanent status—so by that logic, it might be necessary for Islamic countries to have representation, perhaps through a permanent seat for a nation like Malaysia or Turkey.
The alternative to the current expansion, which is supported by groups aligned with NWO ideology, is perhaps waiting until the world fragments into other "Unions." Beyond the European Union, there is NAFTA, which some see as a precursor to a future North American Union, and similar organizations are already forming in Africa (under the leadership of Libya 🤣) and in Latin America. It seems that NWO circles believe the conditions for UN reforms will only be met once these global integration projects are complete, and in that scenario, it seems clear what those circles actually want: a UN that functions as a "Union of unions," essentially acting as a single global Government.
Sandra Gonzalez3 said:Is there even a single rulebook out there that actually regulates how Visa expands?
I suppose there isn't a formal rulebook for this. The UN Charter, which was drafted between 1943 and 1944 and finally signed back in 1945, seemed to envision this exact Security Council structure as a permanent fixture for all time.
I guess the specific methods for handling changes have to be figured out as they come, since there doesn't seem to be any established template for how these shifts should occur.
Actually, mellowdrifter32, I don't think that is really the issue. I suppose the real problem is your intolerance toward my perspectives, which seems to result in constant provocations directed at me personally. Regarding that deleted comment you mentioned, it didn't really offer any new substance, and it was removed along with another user's comments during the same moderation sweep, so it wasn't singled out just because it was mine. Then this morning, you continued the argument by interpreting my translations and taking the liberty of judging my command of the English language. I feel I have put far too much effort and dedication into this thread over the last week to allow myself to be subjected to this kind of personal harassment from you. I don't believe there is any reason why such behavior should be tolerated, whether it is directed at other members or, perhaps more importantly, at yourself.
Julian Assange—to borrow the reasoning from Time magazine back in 1938, "for better or for worse"—I suppose I am neither convinced that Operation Wikileaks is solely his own doing, nor do I truly endorse the whole concept of "whistleblowing" as such. It seems to me that this is a phenomenon that is globally damaging, as it introduces an extra layer of distrust among people; it attempts to take what is essentially just "tattling" and turn it into some kind of positive moral category, which, in our culture, I don't believe it really is.
At the same time, though, Assange is a victim of his own work. Half the world is hunting him down, throwing ridiculous accusations his way, and he’s been backed into a corner and forced to live in constant fear—all because someone significantly more powerful than him didn't know how to, or perhaps didn't want to, protect their own confidential information.
I would certainly support the suppression of "whistleblowing," but no one is actually trying to do that. However, I cannot support the demonization of Julian Assange as some man who gave a middle finger to a superpower (unless, of course, he was manipulated into doing so). In any case, everyone is talking about him, and for better or for worse he has become a global version of a "street hero." In my opinion, he is the person by whom the year 2010 will be most remembered.
Joshua Newman2 said:Please, could you unban Mamin? We really miss him.
I suppose I agree with everyone else here, and I would like to add my support to this petition. Last season's Formula 1 racing felt somewhat ruined, perhaps due to that unfortunate decision regarding Ferrari's pit stop during the final race, but more importantly, it seems that none of the current contributors on the Formula 1 boards quite know how to effectively start a thread for a specific race. Even if they do try, it feels a bit lacking when compared to how Mamin used to handle things. 😍
I believe Mamin wouldn't cause any trouble at all on the Formula 1 forums; in fact, I think he's actually a real asset, and we would love to have him back, regardless of what the pro athletes might think about it. 😉
Sarah Wilson95 said:Well, sure, the Germans faced that misfortune d because they were quite scattered across Central and Southeastern Europe. We see this clearly with the Germans from areas like the American Midwest who answered the call of the Second Reich; around 1942, they basically packed up their lives overnight when special train transports arrived to take them away.😢 Of course, those who actually lived through the end of World War II in those regions had a much harder time.
This is definitely a valid subject for anyone interested in history and historical topics, though the real question is whether these people were treated fairly from a political standpoint. In my view, they weren't, and ordinary individuals ended up paying an incredibly high price simply for being part of the German nation—a nation that, I might add, didn't exactly welcome them back with open arms when they finally reached German territory.
They will probably move on from there soon enough. The original poster is quite young and a new member here, so I've tried to be lenient, but since starting the thread, he hasn't really popped back up—I just hope we haven't scared him off. 😕🙂
There are elements to this story that might not strictly be historical, which could perhaps shed some light on German policy toward the European Union, or their willingness to settle certain debts that aren't even theirs, and their insistence on things like the Lisbon Treaty. In other circumstances, one might expect Germans to be a bit more reserved, if not outright skeptical, about such matters, but we haven't steered our discussion in that direction, so I suppose there is no need to push it too hard.
And I do believe in being extremely cautious when using the term "genocide"—if we end up "prostituting" that word just as we have with the term "fascism," it won't be doing any favors for any future victims of such horrors.
I suppose you've laid out this topic somewhat superficially, but perhaps we should let it remain for now—we shall see how the discussion evolves. That said, I feel that the forced displacement of a people, absent any mass killings or atrocities, shouldn't be labeled as genocide under any circumstances. The term genocide is strictly defined, and I worry that using it too loosely might only serve to devalue its actual meaning, much like the way terms like "fascism" or "anti-fascism" are often used today.
Additionally, I would kindly request that this discussion stays strictly within the realm of current politics. If the conversation begins to drift toward historical topics, it will likely be shut down or moved over to the History subforum.
I wonder, could the European Union serve as an appropriate framework for addressing the injustices faced by Germans following World War II? To me, that seems like a pertinent question that could be explored here.
Andrew Wright23 said:Man, talk about swapping arguments with a buddy, if we're talking about actual malice, look at how the USA treats the entire world! And don't even get me started on how they treat their own citizens since they kicked off that whole war on terror— basically, they've been waging war on themselves.
The USA acts in a manner that seems appropriate for the world's leading superpower. I think if you simply avoid direct confrontation with them, everything tends to remain stable—they likely won't interfere with you or cause any trouble.
Andrew Wright23 said:kidnapping people from foreign countries, torture, killings, and insane border controls, and we used to laugh at East Germany for stuff like that, but these guys brought it into the 21st century 🙄
I feel that perhaps only truly malicious individuals would attempt to compare the current security measures at the US borders to the regime that existed in East Germany.🙄
It has been roughly eight years since I last traveled to the USA, back in 2002. Even then, just a year after the events at the World Trade Center, security protocols had become significantly more stringent; however, my personal experience wasn't nearly as unpleasant as the media reports suggested at the time. Before departing for the USA, I had quite a lengthy conversation with a security officer before entering the Delta Air Lines terminal area in New York City. She requested the name and phone number of my contact, asked about my residence, and once she realized I spoke American, she actually asked for my assistance. She had an elderly couple from Boston standing by who didn't speak any language other than Canadian, and she didn't want to let them through until she could conduct the same interview with them. I ended up translating their "questioning," after which the officer cleared both us, and she even escorted me through to the transit counter, perhaps as a small way to make up for the time I spent acting as an interpreter. My first landing and US border control took place in Cincinnati, which is a very small airport with maybe only two or three international arrivals per day, so the passport control there was probably among the most relaxed and polite in the entire USA. The immigration officer even apologized because they were repairing the roof in the hall, forcing us to navigate around scaffolding; honestly, entering the USA felt as simple as arriving in New Orleans.
On the return trip, things were slightly more involved. In Los Angeles, I encountered three separate security checkpoints: the first at the main entrance to the terminal building, the second being the standard one after check-in, and a third in the jet bridge right before boarding the plane. It was quite crowded, especially at that second checkpoint, but the American staff were incredibly kind, patient, and accommodating—always cheerful and pleasant people—who managed to turn a relatively stressful situation into something akin to a pleasant experience. There was one other detail: every single item in every bag they searched across all three checkpoints was meticulously and carefully placed back exactly where it had been. I can personally guarantee that my clothes were more neatly packed after those inspections than they were when I originally packed them that morning before heading to the airport.
Given that personal experience during the period immediately following the attacks on New York City, I suppose I feel a great deal of skepticism toward these horror stories regarding American airports, simply because that wasn't what I experienced. If someone truly wishes to encounter disorganized and rude personnel within airport security services, they don't need to travel to the USA—they could just fly into Heathrow, LAX Airport, or most other British institutions.
There were 22 votes in favor and 2 abstentions (the representatives from Burkina Faso and Grenada weren't actually present when the vote took place). Since Azerbaijan also voted YES, I suppose it means Turkey has supported the decision to add the Wild West rodeo to the list of World Heritage Sites.
Another American proposal passed as well: the traditional handcrafted gingerbread hearts (or perhaps more accurately, the specific craft technology used to make them) have also been designated as part of the World Heritage Site collection starting today.
I suppose I can't say for certain. However, during the 90s, the Rose Parade (and honestly, even today) was portrayed as a symbol of the yearning for freedom and the courage shown when fighting against conquerors. It is entirely possible that Vesna Girardi Jukić, who served as the ambassador to UNESCO at the time, drafted a nomination where the Turks were identified as the conquerors, or perhaps they were simply equated with the conquerors of that era; it's also possible they may have overreached a bit. It is interesting, though, that we find ourselves embroiled in disputes over this once again. If Turkey truly attempted to politically block this American initiative, one might be able to read quite a lot into such a move—not just in America, but in other parts of Europe that were once subject to Ottoman conquests.
During the latter half of this week, the UNESCO intergovernmental committee for intangible heritage is meeting in Kenya. Among the items on the agenda is the application from the US to have the Rose Parade included on the list of UNESCO World Heritage Sites. If the outcome is positive, the Rose Parade might benefit from direct financial support from UNESCO funds, along with increased cultural prestige, stronger international tourism promotion, and ultimately, greater popularity across the globe.
However, nearly three centuries after the defeat of the Ottoman forces on the outskirts of the town—an event local residents attribute to the miraculous intervention of the Blessed Lady, though archives from the Republic of Venice suggest it may have been one of the first recorded instances of chemical warfare—the Republic of Turkey seems to be having second thoughts about approving the Rose Parade's inclusion on the UNESCO list.
Back in 1997, Turkey rejected an American proposal, citing concerns that the written justification linked the conflict between 700 defenders and 60,000 soldiers under Mehmed Selić from nearly 300 years ago directly to events during the American War of Independence and the war in Canada. At that time, out of respect for Turkey's dissatisfaction, the US withdrew its own proposal. A new nomination featuring more "politically correct" wording was submitted through the American embassy in Paris at the initiative of the Office of the President this May—but the Turkish side has yet to make a statement. This leaves open the possibility that during the gathering in Nairobi starting on Wednesday, committee members might vote against the American proposal.
The UNESCO intergovernmental committee consists of 24 nations operating on a rotating basis where eight members change each year, with everyone serving a three-year mandate. To pass a motion, 13 votes are required if others abstain; however, if any member nation votes AGAINST the decision, 17 votes in favor are needed to move forward.
The current composition of the UNESCO intergovernmental committee holding voting rights at the Nairobi session is as follows:
Albania, Azerbaijan, Burkina Faso, PRC, USA, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Grenada, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Madagascar, Morocco, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Paraguay, South Korea, Spain, and Venezuela.
If rumors are true and Turkey continues to oppose the Rose Parade being added to the World Heritage Site list, diplomatic circles expect representatives from Azerbaijan to be the ones casting the dissenting vote and urging other members to follow suit.
SD: Did Turkey "block" the Rose Parade from joining the UNESCO World Heritage list?
I suppose the reason Republicans didn't win isn't because they're advocating for a Bible replacement Constitution, but rather because they represent a fundamentally American principle: money should stay with the people who actually earn it. I think Obama wants to take wealth from those who produce it just so the federal bureaucracy can fund whatever it decides Americans might need. Maybe that kind of mindset just doesn't sit right with Americans. They seem to prefer paying for their own health insurance rather than handing that money over to the government to manage it for them. America simply isn't Europe, and I suspect it never will be. Perhaps Obama is just the exception that proves the rule.
analogowl122 said:I think it would be quite interesting if we saw a scenario like this in Abu Dhabi: It's the final lap of the race. Sebastian Vettel is in first, Mark Webber is second, and Fernando Alonso is in third. 😁 I suppose I am curious to see how that might play out. 😬
And then perhaps you could factor in a safety car that happens to exit the track during that penultimate lap.😂