Greetings

how do i mine for fish?

Anyway, re: the UN, I think the original bodies formed in 1944-45 are core to world stability. The GA and SC, namely. Everything added since is up for debate on their individual merits or lack thereof.

The UN SC especially has been critical for US interests since it was born

I think the UN was taken over by nations hostile to United States interests and Israel interests.

The UN GA allows for steam to get blown off before blood spatters around

They are using the powers of UN to attack both nations or make it hard on both nations now.

Why can't people start private non profit organizations to help people, why are they trying to force the whole country to pay for another country's problems. Our government represents us not a foreign nation.

That is what pisses me off.... apparently we have to take care of all the other nations in our hemisphere.

The UN is a great way to advance our interests. Again, whatever you may think of Iraq now, in 2003 the administration wanted to invade and the UN provided a legal basis for it.

@Dusty Morgan , would you rather China do it instead? They certainly want to.

Well UN has went against American interests lately.

I'd rather we keep the Americas dependent on us rather than China. I like having big wide oceans between us and any potential superpower adversary.

Having a Soviet puppet state 90 miles off Florida sucked enough

Oh yeah... having them depend on us is good and all. But it harms United States citizens and our nation's ability to function at times.

The Cons are starting to outweigh the Pros.

Anyway, a weak League of Nations without the US in large part led to WWII. Despite some interest here in a European War I still don't want to see my son called to die in one. Diplomacy is cheap, in blood and treasure.

What price maintaining the Monroe Doctrine?

Do we really want Chinese bases in Honduras and Nicaragua?

China desperately wants bases close to us to cause mischief like they feel we cause from The Philippines and Japan.

http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-who-uses-veto-in-the-un-security-council-most-often-and-for-what-29907

The veto goes both ways

US has to maintain superiority in the hemisphere and the world

taking care of those nations amounts to cash and training, anything beyond that is "imperialism"

Problem is no one else wants us to

Humanitarian aid is imperialism?

Honduras is still suffering from some nasty hurricanes in years past

As ive had it explained to me yes

It's a mess and the source of most of that caravan that has everyone's undies in a bunch

Apparently its making the dependent on and subservient to whatever nation provides the aid

Yes, I hear that from the left

I actually am somewhat sympathetic to it

But it's still the wrong way to look at it

The idea is we want to teach a man to fish rather than give him a fish

That sounds great

Why would they fish in their pond when they can go a hundred miles to fish in someone elses pond and send the fish back home?

But if China is willing to give the man a fish and the man reciprocates by offering his home up, I'd rather be the one giving the fishes

But it shouldn't mean that we cut off aid just because we may seem to appear imperialistic

No we shouldnt cut off the aid

The mindset of the left is that anything the US does in terms of action abroad is imperialistic

I'm a bleeding heart but I make love to Henry Kissinger when it comes to geopolitical realism