Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[KingKhan]

This what happens when regular Joe smoes think their Socrates.

[ozymandias]

This what happens when regular Joe smoes think their Socrates.

I'm not sure what you mean....

[Tjanaparh]

but to compare the political climate of the US to Iran is ignorant, myopic, and frankly so asinine that it cannot even be the foundation of a reasonable conversation. You are not just comparing apples and oranges, you are comparing apples and termites.


Greetings from my side!
I am a guest here, but I would like you to explain what did You mean with this phrase? Who are the apples , who are the termites and why?

[ozymandias]

but to compare the political climate of the US to Iran is ignorant, myopic, and frankly so asinine that it cannot even be the foundation of a reasonable conversation. You are not just comparing apples and oranges, you are comparing apples and termites.


Greetings from my side!
I am a guest here, but I would like you to explain what did You mean with this phrase? Who are the apples , who are the termites and why?

Sure can!

Al Hanif stated:

You accuse Iran of being in the axis of evil when Iran did not attacked anybody for 300 years. The USA, however, during the last 30 years waged war on "El Salvador (1980), Libya (1981), Sinai (1982), Lebanon (1982 1983), Egypt (1983), Grenada (1983), Honduras (1983), Chad (1983), Persian Gulf (1984), Libya (1986) , Bolivia (1986), Iran (1987), Persian Gulf (1987), Kuwait (1987), Iran (1988), Honduras (1988), Panama (1988), Libya (1989), Panama (1989), Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru (1989), Philippines (1989), Panama (1989-1990), Liberia (1990), Saudi Arabia (1990), Iraq (1991), Zaire (1991), Sierra Leone (1992), Somalia (1992), Bosnia-Herzegovina (1993 to present), Macedonia (1993), Haiti (1994), Macedonia (1994), Bosnia (1995), Liberia (1996), Central African Republic (1996), Albania (1997), Congo/Gabon (1997), Sierra Leon (1997), Cambodia (1997), Iraq (1998), Guinea/Bissau (1998), Kenya/Tanzania (1998 to 1999), Afghanistan/Sudan (1998), Liberia (1998), East Timor (1999), Serbia (1999), Sierra Leon (2000), Yemen (2000), East Timor (2000), Afghanistan (2001 to present), Yemen (2002), Philippines (2002) , Cote d'Ivoire (2002), Iraq (2003 to present), Liberia (2003), Georgia/Djibouti (2003), Haiti (2004), Georgia/Djibouti/Kenya/Ethiopia/Yemen/Eritrea War on Terror (2004), Pakistan drone attacks (2004 to present), Somalia (2007), South Ossetia/Georgia (2008), Syria (2008), Yemen (2009), Libya (2011), Yemen (2011)."

He states Iran has not attacked anyone in 300 years, and then lists the military actions of the US. What this does not consider is the fact that the US, for all of the military actions listed, the US was a world Superpower, while Iran was not -- and the US was drug into the conflict by treaties and humanitarian reasons. This is why I state that it is unwise to compare the military histories for these countries -- The US, as a superpower, and militarily powerful nation is asked by the UN and other countries to step in on one side of a conflict, or another. Iran tends to not get the same number of requests.

This barely even mentions the fact that a huge number of the conflicts listed, the US entered the country as part of a UN Peacekeeping force. For example, let's take a look at the countries involved in the East Timor 1999 actions -- and, I would like to point out that the conflict in East Timor started in 1999, and continued through 2005 with a continual UN presence for the same issues. Let's take a look at why the US was in East Timor, in the first place:

Australia provided the largest contingent of troops, hardware and equipment for the INTERFET operation–5,500 personnel at its peak–followed by New Zealand.[12] New Zealand's contribution peaked at 1,100 NZDF personnel, and nearly 4,000 New Zealanders served in East Timor (see Military history of New Zealand). It was New Zealand's largest overseas military deployment since the Korean War.
Eventually 22 nations contributed to INTERFET which grew to over 11,000 strong. Other countries to contribute were (in alphabetical order), Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Malaysia, Norway, Philippines, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States of America.

As you can see, this sheds a whole different light on the US involvement in the East Timor 1999 conflict, doesn't it? This was *not* a war of US aggression, but rather a UN action that the US participated in. For a bit of history, the UN did not even *HAVE* an Iranian Peacekeeping force. A quick google shows that Iran has, in the last few days, contributed forces for the first time in the history of the UN peacekeeping actions -- which started in 1948 -- and has had 53 actions since 1988, alone.


As a side note, take a quick look at some of those dates: Panama 1988 -- the US did not militarily attack Panama in 1988, it was purely political posturing. This posturing did lead to the US attacking in Panama in 1989 -- which is listed again on that list. Interestingly enough, the actual invasion occurred on December 20, 1989 -- and the last units were pulled out in April 1990 -- and once again, Panama 1989-1990 appears on the list. The same conflict appeared 3 times.



As you can see, not only is this list misrepresenting the number and locations of US military actions, it completely ignores the fact that many of these actions were not a result of US action, but UN action, and thus is not comparing apples to apples. Take your pick as to which country is the apple, and which one is the termite.

[ozymandias]

Sure can!

Al Hanif stated:


He states Iran has not attacked anyone in 300 years, and then lists the military actions of the US. What this does not consider is the fact that the US, for all of the military actions listed, the US was a world Superpower, while Iran was not -- and the US was drug into the conflict by treaties and humanitarian reasons. This is why I state that it is unwise to compare the military histories for these countries -- The US, as a superpower, and militarily powerful nation is asked by the UN and other countries to step in on one side of a conflict, or another. Iran tends to not get the same number of requests.

This barely even mentions the fact that a huge number of the conflicts listed, the US entered the country as part of a UN Peacekeeping force. For example, let's take a look at the countries involved in the East Timor 1999 actions -- and, I would like to point out that the conflict in East Timor started in 1999, and continued through 2005 with a continual UN presence for the same issues. Let's take a look at why the US was in East Timor, in the first place:




As you can see, this sheds a whole different light on the US involvement in the East Timor 1999 conflict, doesn't it? This was *not* a war of US aggression, but rather a UN action that the US participated in. For a bit of history, the UN did not even *HAVE* an Iranian Peacekeeping force. A quick google shows that Iran has, in the last few days, contributed forces for the first time in the history of the UN peacekeeping actions -- which started in 1948 -- and has had 53 actions since 1988, alone.


As a side note, take a quick look at some of those dates: Panama 1988 -- the US did not militarily attack Panama in 1988, it was purely political posturing. This posturing did lead to the US attacking in Panama in 1989 -- which is listed again on that list. Interestingly enough, the actual invasion occurred on December 20, 1989 -- and the last units were pulled out in April 1990 -- and once again, Panama 1989-1990 appears on the list. The same conflict appeared 3 times.



As you can see, not only is this list misrepresenting the number and locations of US military actions, it completely ignores the fact that many of these actions were not a result of US action, but UN action, and thus is not comparing apples to apples. Take your pick as to which country is the apple, and which one is the termite.

Please note -- I am not defending, justifying, or excusing any of these military actions. I am simply pointing out that this list is not a fair representation and the comparison is not accurate in the slightest.

[tor_khan]

What exactly is an "atheist agnostic"?

As I've understood it an atheist rejects any form of deity, but an agnostic will consider the possibility if proven. I might have understood this incorrectly. Even so, back to my question ...

[Tjanaparh]

Greetings again, you didn't answer on my question but asked me again. Please answer it , i do not know what you meant with it and want avoid misinterpretations. Hopefully you have chosen this comparsion with sense.

I understood your point - yes USA and IRAN have different strategical roles, but!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is blind to say - "You cannot say that IRAN is more peacefull than USA because of their different strategical roles"
The UN even if its an international organization is a false organization, it is rueled by the power states. So You cannot say that UN decisions are objective, bayuse if it would be like that or there would be necessary everywhere military presence, or nowhere.
You know about pproblems of Lezi, Avar, Tolish, Baloch, Uyghur....? Why the Un now isn interfering(because this people are out of interest now- they will interfere when they will have interest.....
If the USA sees itself as protector, than it could pull some of their population back giv best rights to native people remaind and work on them.
It is funny to hear that a drug dependent may heal drugdependance in other people, isn't it?
You are surely right, the oficial version is that.
I would ask you to answer some more questions:

Do You think the smaller countries like Iran and Afghanistan, like Armenia and Burkina Faso, like Kyrghyzstan and Mongolia, like Peru and Chile are not doing this number of "peackeeping" because they are not so potent like the USA ?
Why do you think the USA is a superpower?
Do You think an outern state can decide about human right in an other state and how?
Do You think the USA does human rights violations?
If yes, why the UN doesn give a resolution to China to send peackeeping troops to garant that it won't happen?
If no, why not?
Why is the UN in USA?
What is your opinion about IRANs view and actions?
Do you think somebody can resolve problems of others without having resolved the same problems for himself?
Do you think if a goverment is fault doing bad things and the citizens do not likke that but remain only at"non liking" that they are not fault too?


I limit myself on this questions.
Hope You understood them, cause my ebglish isn't the best and I am a bit tired too.

[ozymandias]

What exactly is an "atheist agnostic"?

As I've understood it an atheist rejects any form of deity, but an agnostic will consider the possibility if proven. I might have understood this incorrectly. Even so, back to my question ...

One of my favorite topics. This is commonly misunderstood.

Theism/Atheism is a measure of belief in the existence of a god. Theists believe, atheists are everyone else.

Gnostic/Agnostic is a measure of belief in the ability to *prove* something, in this case the existence of a god.

These two terms measure different things, but are commonly misunderstood to measure the same thing. Many people believe that an agnostic is a 'weak' atheist, but this is not true.

An gnostic theist believes that not only does a god exist, they believe that they *can prove beyond all doubt* the existence in a scientifically sound method. For example, I am a gnostic 'appleist' -- I can prove beyond all doubt, scientifically, that apples exist.

An agnostic theist believes that a god does exist, but they cannot scientifically prove it. Most theists fall into this case. They believe, and admit that they cannot prove their belief scientifically.

A gnostic atheist believes that there is no god, and that they can scientifically prove this. For example, I am a gnostic '1+1 does not equal 5'ist. I believe that 1+1 does not equal 5 -- and can prove this.

An agnostic atheist believes that there is no god, but this cannot be scientifically proven. The reason I am an agnostic atheist is because I do not believe that the definition of god is sufficiently defined in a falsifiable way. In order to prove the non-existence of something, you need to first define that thing, and what does, and does not constitute that thing -- and you need to define a concrete method for proving it does not exist. For most things, this is not possible. It is relatively easy to prove the existence of some things -- I can prove that a cat exists -- I can simply find one. To prove that something does not exist, you would need to define what it is -- and then show that no such thing could possibly exist anywhere -- and not just on this planet...

[ozymandias]

Greetings again, you didn't answer on my question but asked me again. Please answer it , i do not know what you meant with it and want avoid misinterpretations. Hopefully you have chosen this comparsion with sense.

Could you clarify the question? I do not understand what you are asking.

I understood your point - yes USA and IRAN have different strategical roles, but!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is blind to say - "You cannot say that IRAN is more peacefull than USA because of their different strategical roles"

I agree. That is why you have to come up with objective measures and compare things on equal terms. It is not realistic to simply measure the number of wars a country has been in and rank them on that sole measure. You need to look into the *size* of the countries, the location, the treaties they are in, and the motivation for the wars -- just to name a few -- but even then, you are missing out on the most important factor -- a country attacked is still at war, even though they did no cause it.

The UN even if its an international organization is a false organization, it is rueled by the power states. So You cannot say that UN decisions are objective, bayuse if it would be like that or there would be necessary everywhere military presence, or nowhere.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, so I will withhold comment at this time, until you clarify.

You know about pproblems of Lezi, Avar, Tolish, Baloch, Uyghur....? Why the Un now isn interfering(because this people are out of interest now- they will interfere when they will have interest.....
If the USA sees itself as protector, than it could pull some of their population back giv best rights to native people remaind and work on them.

Again, I am not sure what you mean to say. It appears there are language issues at play here.

It is funny to hear that a drug dependent may heal drugdependance in other people, isn't it?

In a way, you are right, but it is as equally strange to think that they cannot work together to both attempt to resolve the issue -- and in many of these cases of military action, the US is seeking to help democracy avoid being overrun by dictators and tyrants. Take a look at Panama, again. The US got involved to eject a dictator that *lost* the public election, and went in to help insure the democratic process. This is *not* an issue that the US has a problem with internally. To use your drug addiction analogy, this is like a man would be like a person with a gambling problem (representing all non-democracy problems the US has) helping Panama with it's drug problem (democracy problem).

You are surely right, the oficial version is that.
I would ask you to answer some more questions:

Do You think the smaller countries like Iran and Afghanistan, like Armenia and Burkina Faso, like Kyrghyzstan and Mongolia, like Peru and Chile are not doing this number of "peackeeping" because they are not so potent like the USA ?

In some cases, that may be the issue -- but I think it has more to do with the size of disposable income the government can afford to spend on military. If only 1% of a government's budget is spent on a military, the US is going to have far more troops to lend to the US.

In addition, many of these countries simple have not offered troops to the UN to use. Iran, for instance, has not offered peacekeeping troops until recently -- so they could not possibly have been used.

Why do you think the USA is a superpower?

Due to size and wealth. We are able to afford a large military, and were able to develop weapons that other nations were unable to develop.

Do You think an outern state can decide about human right in an other state and how?

Yes and no. All humans have basic rights, such as free speech, and freedom to select their own religion, the right to safety and a few other basics. The UN recognizes these rights, and all member countries ratified the agreements. This simplifies issues, in that many of these cases it is *not* an outside state -- the states themselves agreed to these rights.

Not only that, but I think that morally and ethically, it is the obligation of each and every human on this planet to protect the rights of everyone else. This is *not* an issue of politics, but rather an issue of basic human rights. Regardless of what country a person resides in they deserve their basic rights.

Do You think the USA does human rights violations?

Yes.

If yes, why the UN doesn give a resolution to China to send peackeeping troops to garant that it won't happen?

Bigger fish to fry -- and China would not do it, anyway. China is a far worse human rights violator than the US. The US violates some human rights, and is working to self correct the issue. People here protest water boarding of enemy combatants, for instance. There are other countries, however, where anyone that even disagrees with the government are murdered, and alternative political parties or views are not allowed.

If no, why not?
Why is the UN in USA?

It's not.

What is your opinion about IRANs view and actions?

I think it needs to open up to opposing political views, and allow all residents and citizens equal opportunity to education, free speech, religious freedoms, and the right to vote.

Do you think somebody can resolve problems of others without having resolved the same problems for himself?

Yes.

Do you think if a goverment is fault doing bad things and the citizens do not likke that but remain only at"non liking" that they are not fault too?

I am not sure what you are trying to ask, or what country you are talking about. In the US, for instance, the government does things many citizens disagree with, but these people *DO* something about it. They protest. They try to change the government's decisions. Many people disagree with the US governments actions in many cases, and are working to resolve it.

I limit myself on this questions.
Hope You understood them, cause my ebglish isn't the best and I am a bit tired too.

I understand. Your English is far better than any of the secondary languages I speak. I answered the questions as best I could based on how I understood them.

[єѕαρχαι]

Sure can!

Al Hanif stated:


He states Iran has not attacked anyone in 300 years, and then lists the military actions of the US. What this does not consider is the fact that the US, for all of the military actions listed, the US was a world Superpower, while Iran was not -- and the US was drug into the conflict by treaties and humanitarian reasons. This is why I state that it is unwise to compare the military histories for these countries -- The US, as a superpower, and militarily powerful nation is asked by the UN and other countries to step in on one side of a conflict, or another. Iran tends to not get the same number of requests.

This barely even mentions the fact that a huge number of the conflicts listed, the US entered the country as part of a UN Peacekeeping force. For example, let's take a look at the countries involved in the East Timor 1999 actions -- and, I would like to point out that the conflict in East Timor started in 1999, and continued through 2005 with a continual UN presence for the same issues. Let's take a look at why the US was in East Timor, in the first place:




As you can see, this sheds a whole different light on the US involvement in the East Timor 1999 conflict, doesn't it? This was *not* a war of US aggression, but rather a UN action that the US participated in. For a bit of history, the UN did not even *HAVE* an Iranian Peacekeeping force. A quick google shows that Iran has, in the last few days, contributed forces for the first time in the history of the UN peacekeeping actions -- which started in 1948 -- and has had 53 actions since 1988, alone.


As a side note, take a quick look at some of those dates: Panama 1988 -- the US did not militarily attack Panama in 1988, it was purely political posturing. This posturing did lead to the US attacking in Panama in 1989 -- which is listed again on that list. Interestingly enough, the actual invasion occurred on December 20, 1989 -- and the last units were pulled out in April 1990 -- and once again, Panama 1989-1990 appears on the list. The same conflict appeared 3 times.



As you can see, not only is this list misrepresenting the number and locations of US military actions, it completely ignores the fact that many of these actions were not a result of US action, but UN action, and thus is not comparing apples to apples. Take your pick as to which country is the apple, and which one is the termite.

Just to give you some statistics , see where US stands ....

Rank Country/Region Peacekeepers 1 Bangladesh 10,736 2 Pakistan 10,691 3 India 8,935 4 Nigeria 5,709 5 Egypt 5,458 6 Nepal 5,044 7 Jordan 3,826 8 Ghana 3,647 9 Rwanda 3,635 10 Uruguay 2,489 11 Ethiopia 2,391 12 Brazil 2,269 13 Senegal 2,254 14 South Africa 2,088 15 China 1,995 16 Italy 1,866 17 France 1,771 18 Indonesia 1,691 19 Morocco 1,561 20 Sri Lanka 1,157 21 Spain 1,109 22 Malaysia 1,080 23 Benin 1,028 24 Philippines 1,024 25 Argentina 1,023 26 Tanzania 1,011 27 Burkina Faso 927 28 Kenya 870 29 Zambia 768 30 Togo 738 31 Turkey 664 32 South Korea 643 33 Niger 577 34 Chile 538 35 Gambia 522 36 Mongolia 426 37 Peru 396 38 Austria 393 39 Ukraine 366 40 Russia 362 41 Portugal 337 42 Guatemala 320 43 Sierra Leone 311 44 Germany 293 45 United Kingdom 281 46 Japan 266 47 Fiji 263 48 Bolivia 259 49 Yemen 211 50 Canada 200 51 Slovakia 200 52 Belgium 195 53 Uganda 184 54 Denmark 172 55 Côte d'Ivoire 148 56 Zimbabwe 140 57 Croatia 130 58 Malawi 117 59 Cameroon 115 60 Australia 110 61 Mali 106 62 El Salvador 104 63 Hungary 95 64 Tunisia 93 65 Namibia 93 66 Romania 93 67 Guinea 92 68 Paraguay 89 69 Ecuador 89 70 United States 82 71 Chad 78 72 Burundi 66 73 Madagascar 65 74 Greece 63 75 Norway 60 76 Ireland 56 77 Cambodia 55 78 Sweden 55 79 Thailand 49 80 Netherlands 47 81 Serbia 40 82 Djibouti 37 83 Colombia 36 84 Congo 31 85 Bosnia 29 86 New Zealand 29 87 Switzerland 29 88 Finland 28 89 Central African Republic 26 90 Singapore 22 91 Jamaica 18 92 Kyrgyzstan 18 93 Poland 17 94 Tajikistan 16 95 Slovenia 16 96 Samoa 16 97 Israel 14 98 Honduras 12 99 Kazakhstan 9 100 Czech Republic 9 101 Brunei 9 102 Guinea 7 103 Moldova 7 104 Montenegro 4 105 Grenada 3 106 Qatar 3 107 Iran 2 108 Mozambique 2 109 Bulgaria 2 110 Lithuania 2 111 Iceland 2 112 Cyprus 2 113 Congo 1 114 Republic of Macedonia 1 115 Estonia 1 116 Palau 1



List of countries by number of UN peacekeepers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Tjanaparh]

Could you clarify the question? I do not understand what you are asking.


I meant, whom You see as apple and as termit and why?



[COLOR="rgb(85, 107, 47)"]I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, so I will withhold comment at this time, until you clarify.[/COLOR]
Ok! Look - the UN is not an objective organization! You cannot even immagine how many national conflicts there are. But the UN makes resolutions only for those they interest. If it would be a right organization it would be or everywhere or nowhere.

[COLOR="rgb(85, 107, 47)"]Again, I am not sure what you mean to say. It appears there are language issues at play here.[/COLOR]
Ok! Its about the same. Further i will tell You like this. also to answer further questions. Russia and China are as well big powers, Iran is a medium-bigger country. You called China a bigger human rights violater than USA, but I disagree, and I can tell You why. Russiaand China have done as well many bad military interventions, Iran you americans call dicator - but! But in all that countries still remain all native peoples with their traditions, for example Russia has more than 100 local nationalities, the same about Iran - they maintain their culture. In the USA the natives are almost destroyed, all you are or sons of killers and occupants or immigrants who came there searching for a better life. But you are all guest, and the original population is minimazied to a mortal minimum, in Russia Chechens live in Chechnya, in Iran Baloch live in Balochestan, in China Mongols live in Inner Mongolia. To Iran , Russia, Cina came also immigrants. I am for example a son of Armenian immigrants to Russia, but no Armenian in Russia went to Chukota , told its my land, killed the Chukchi and gave lessons to the other countries on how to live. No Pashtun went to Mazandaran , shooted t Mazandaranis and did like the Americans. And so on. Yes Russia and China colonized territories , they also hve immigrants, but still they maintaind their local peoples. USA no.


[COLOR="rgb(85, 107, 47)"]In a way, you are right, but it is as equally strange to think that they cannot work together to both attempt to resolve the issue -- and in many of these cases of military action, the US is seeking to help democracy avoid being overrun by dictators and tyrants. Take a look at Panama, again. The US got involved to eject a dictator that *lost* the public election, and went in to help insure the democratic process. This is *not* an issue that the US has a problem with internally. To use your drug addiction analogy, this is like a man would be like a person with a gambling problem (representing all non-democracy problems the US has) helping Panama with it's drug problem (democracy problem).
[/COLOR]
Who is USA to decide what is right? Why do You think that this democracy is the right way? I am against democracy, it is a hypocrite lie system that is destroying my nation. A powerful dictator that abuses in his power is equal evil like a "free" elected president trying to deal in 4--5 years in some economical interests of big powerfull shadowpeople.
Democracy was like that even in ancient times , where it is taken from- the greek DEMOS where all people holding sllaves, and they were the minority of the population.
Human society is not only a scoiety of rights but of responsabilities. One US congressman orderd one of my friends in Armenia bacuse he was telling that Gays should be treated as sick and gay style shouldn't be promuoved here. He had to go to prison, but this man was fighting for our nation- we are at the borders of existance, we need no gay colture promotion, we are like that few - you can have the possibility to feed your sick peoples, but we are chalenging here to survive against your global petrol plans, the interesting is that we have even no petrol, but becauseof the conflicts with our neighbours we are disturbing in pipelines and so on.....I went to school in Germany, our teacher was telling us "Who is gay here?" Nobody answere, then he told "Bad, we need a colourfull society, if one thought even comes in your mind, try to evolve it...." This is democracy. Democracy tells - women in our countries have no right, but in reality even in the west they have no right - religous fanatics use body power and in europe they use mental power to kill everything feminine in a woman and evrything masculine in a man.
A girl is laughed at if she doesn'T dress to attract man , if she seeks for family and they even have no protection of becoming an object? this democratic system is only made to fulfill "low material wishes" of the masses - and defending them is called defending human rights - humanity is going far away from nature forgetting that we are part of it, that roles of man and woman are not equal, they are different,it doesn'T mean somebody is worse. Perhaps USA is defending democracy, but this democracy defension is equal to dictatorship, bacuse you do not want anywhere to evolve a way of life different of Yours, You do not want to accept different(with you I mean the USA not you personally), what is the difference? The difference is only after genciding the native America you left direct violence upon your citizens , chaning it to halfinformation-propaganda violence and creating animallike immages in people through films.
I am glad , nobody has to fear for his life, but what the USA promote is equal to breath being death inside.



[COLOR="rgb(85, 107, 47)"]In some cases, that may be the issue -- but I think it has more to do with the size of disposable income the government can afford to spend on military. If only 1% of a government's budget is spent on a military, the US is going to have far more troops to lend to the US.

In addition, many of these countries simple have not offered troops to the UN to use. Iran, for instance, has not offered peacekeeping troops until recently -- so they could not possibly have been used. [/COLOR]
How can military resolve problems of one nation and specially not knowing the nation and beeing a stranger? This is not peace.





Yes and no. All humans have basic rights, such as free speech, and freedom to select their own religion, the right to safety and a few other basics. The UN recognizes these rights, and all member countries ratified the agreements. This simplifies issues, in that many of these cases it is *not* an outside state -- the states themselves agreed to these rights.

Not only that, but I think that morally and ethically, it is the obligation of each and every human on this planet to protect the rights of everyone else. This is *not* an issue of politics, but rather an issue of basic human rights. Regardless of what country a person resides in they deserve their basic rights.
The UN is a political organization, their agreement cannot focus a nations will even , bacuase the nations didn't decide, bacuse a state is not always a nation even....
Basic human rights are a theory- the human has not only rights, he has also basic obligations - to continue his race, to aquist knowledge and to do welfare, without those obligations human rights are a poison. You cannot compare the right of free speech of a gay fulfilling his wishes with the right of a culturally wise person in warning on the populations mental health - but they have the same right of speech in the democratic system now.
To tell shortly I would call it " Do harm without using direct power".
The USA are not a judge, neither are the UN.


that is all for today- I am tired - best wishes!

[ozymandias]

Just to give you some statistics , see where US stands ....

Rank Country/Region Peacekeepers 1 Bangladesh 10,736 2 Pakistan 10,691 3 India 8,935 4 Nigeria 5,709 5 Egypt 5,458 6 Nepal 5,044 7 Jordan 3,826 8 Ghana 3,647 9 Rwanda 3,635 10 Uruguay 2,489 11 Ethiopia 2,391 12 Brazil 2,269 13 Senegal 2,254 14 South Africa 2,088 15 China 1,995 16 Italy 1,866 17 France 1,771 18 Indonesia 1,691 19 Morocco 1,561 20 Sri Lanka 1,157 21 Spain 1,109 22 Malaysia 1,080 23 Benin 1,028 24 Philippines 1,024 25 Argentina 1,023 26 Tanzania 1,011 27 Burkina Faso 927 28 Kenya 870 29 Zambia 768 30 Togo 738 31 Turkey 664 32 South Korea 643 33 Niger 577 34 Chile 538 35 Gambia 522 36 Mongolia 426 37 Peru 396 38 Austria 393 39 Ukraine 366 40 Russia 362 41 Portugal 337 42 Guatemala 320 43 Sierra Leone 311 44 Germany 293 45 United Kingdom 281 46 Japan 266 47 Fiji 263 48 Bolivia 259 49 Yemen 211 50 Canada 200 51 Slovakia 200 52 Belgium 195 53 Uganda 184 54 Denmark 172 55 Côte d'Ivoire 148 56 Zimbabwe 140 57 Croatia 130 58 Malawi 117 59 Cameroon 115 60 Australia 110 61 Mali 106 62 El Salvador 104 63 Hungary 95 64 Tunisia 93 65 Namibia 93 66 Romania 93 67 Guinea 92 68 Paraguay 89 69 Ecuador 89 70 United States 82 71 Chad 78 72 Burundi 66 73 Madagascar 65 74 Greece 63 75 Norway 60 76 Ireland 56 77 Cambodia 55 78 Sweden 55 79 Thailand 49 80 Netherlands 47 81 Serbia 40 82 Djibouti 37 83 Colombia 36 84 Congo 31 85 Bosnia 29 86 New Zealand 29 87 Switzerland 29 88 Finland 28 89 Central African Republic 26 90 Singapore 22 91 Jamaica 18 92 Kyrgyzstan 18 93 Poland 17 94 Tajikistan 16 95 Slovenia 16 96 Samoa 16 97 Israel 14 98 Honduras 12 99 Kazakhstan 9 100 Czech Republic 9 101 Brunei 9 102 Guinea 7 103 Moldova 7 104 Montenegro 4 105 Grenada 3 106 Qatar 3 107 Iran 2 108 Mozambique 2 109 Bulgaria 2 110 Lithuania 2 111 Iceland 2 112 Cyprus 2 113 Congo 1 114 Republic of Macedonia 1 115 Estonia 1 116 Palau 1



List of countries by number of UN peacekeepers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That really does help put things in perspective -- and puts the lie to several other comments people have made. Thanks!

[ozymandias]

Could you clarify the question? I do not understand what you are asking.


I meant, whom You see as apple and as termit and why?

*OH!* This is a language issue. I am calling neither country an apple or a termite. The phrase "comparing apples to apples" is a common English saying that means "comparing two similar things", and the phrase "comparing apples and oranges" means "comparing two dissimilar things". I used the phrase "comparing apples to termites" to indicate that comparing the military histories of Iran and the USA is comparing two things that are far more different than apples and oranges.

[COLOR="rgb(85, 107, 47)"]I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, so I will withhold comment at this time, until you clarify.[/COLOR]
Ok! Look - the UN is not an objective organization! You cannot even immagine how many national conflicts there are. But the UN makes resolutions only for those they interest. If it would be a right organization it would be or everywhere or nowhere.

But not everywhere is in need of peacekeepers, nor does it have the resources to send peacekeepers to every location that needs them. Instead it has to prioritize the fights it thinks it can win with the degree that the fight needs to be fought.

[COLOR="rgb(85, 107, 47)"]Again, I am not sure what you mean to say. It appears there are language issues at play here.[/COLOR]
Ok! Its about the same. Further i will tell You like this. also to answer further questions. Russia and China are as well big powers, Iran is a medium-bigger country.

Russia is not considered a Superpower any more. No matter how you cut it, after the fall of communism, Russia lost a lot of it's might. China is on it's way to be a superpower, but it's borderline.

You called China a bigger human rights violater than USA, but I disagree, and I can tell You why. Russiaand China have done as well many bad military interventions, Iran you americans call dicator - but! But in all that countries still remain all native peoples with their traditions, for example Russia has more than 100 local nationalities, the same about Iran - they maintain their culture. In the USA the natives are almost destroyed, all you are or sons of killers and occupants or immigrants who came there searching for a better life. But you are all guest, and the original population is minimazied to a mortal minimum, in Russia Chechens live in Chechnya, in Iran Baloch live in Balochestan, in China Mongols live in Inner Mongolia. To Iran , Russia, Cina came also immigrants. I am for example a son of Armenian immigrants to Russia, but no Armenian in Russia went to Chukota , told its my land, killed the Chukchi and gave lessons to the other countries on how to live. No Pashtun went to Mazandaran , shooted t Mazandaranis and did like the Americans. And so on. Yes Russia and China colonized territories , they also hve immigrants, but still they maintaind their local peoples. USA no.

Those are historical issues, I agree -- but no one living has done those crimes, so there is no real equitable way to address them. What could the UN do about these transgressions? Come into the USA, and kick out the immigrants and leave the country to the natives? Where would all the kicked out people go? How would it be fair to kick me out of the country? I was not born at the time of these events, and I played no part in them, why should I be exiled or killed as a result of them? For that matter, much of the initial slaughter was done by the Spanish, British, and French before this country even existed. Yes, it is a terrible thing, but the UN was not designed to correct historical human rights violations, but to protect the future from them. That said, my statement was referring to the treatment of the common man in China. They are not guaranteed a living wage, they do not have controlled work hours, they do not have free speech, particularly political speech. They do not have a free press. They do not have free access to decent education. They do not have freedom of movement. They do not have freedom of religion (all political positions must be held by atheists, I might add). China murders more criminals as part of their judicial system than the rest of the world *COMBINED*. China routinely tortures *ANY* criminals, not just enemy combatants. Often criminals are tortured into giving a false confession, and then put to death -- rather than let a crime go unsolved. These are all issues that are non-existent in the US, or if they exist do so in a much lesser degree -- and are actively protested, such as torture.

In the current world, there are far more on-going human rights violations in China per-capita than the US.

[COLOR="rgb(85, 107, 47)"]In a way, you are right, but it is as equally strange to think that they cannot work together to both attempt to resolve the issue -- and in many of these cases of military action, the US is seeking to help democracy avoid being overrun by dictators and tyrants. Take a look at Panama, again. The US got involved to eject a dictator that *lost* the public election, and went in to help insure the democratic process. This is *not* an issue that the US has a problem with internally. To use your drug addiction analogy, this is like a man would be like a person with a gambling problem (representing all non-democracy problems the US has) helping Panama with it's drug problem (democracy problem).
[/COLOR]
Who is USA to decide what is right?

No one. Even the UN doesn't get to 'decide' what is right, it merely acknowledges it.

Why do You think that this democracy is the right way?

It's the only realistic way to protect basic human rights in all cases.

I am against democracy, it is a hypocrite lie system that is destroying my nation. A powerful dictator that abuses in his power is equal evil like a "free" elected president trying to deal in 4--5 years in some economical interests of big powerfull shadowpeople.

I'll chalk this up to translational issues. I cannot understand how you can think that 4-5 years of an elected president who is responsible to the people, and the laws, or he is kicked out, is equally evil to the same man who holds position for life, and decides the laws -- which do not apply to them.

Democracy was like that even in ancient times , where it is taken from- the greek DEMOS where all people holding sllaves, and they were the minority of the population.
Human society is not only a scoiety of rights but of responsabilities. One US congressman orderd one of my friends in Armenia bacuse he was telling that Gays should be treated as sick and gay style shouldn't be promuoved here. He had to go to prison, but this man was fighting for our nation- we are at the borders of existance, we need no gay colture promotion, we are like that few - you can have the possibility to feed your sick peoples, but we are chalenging here to survive against your global petrol plans, the interesting is that we have even no petrol, but becauseof the conflicts with our neighbours we are disturbing in pipelines and so on.....I went to school in Germany, our teacher was telling us "Who is gay here?" Nobody answere, then he told "Bad, we need a colourfull society, if one thought even comes in your mind, try to evolve it...."

I have no idea what this even means....

This is democracy. Democracy tells - women in our countries have no right,

Actually, according to democracy, women have equal rights. That's not even democracy, but basic human rights. Democracy just protects their rights and lets them exercise them.

but in reality even in the west they have no right

I think you are falling for propoganda. My wife is my equal, so I can say from personal experience, you are wrong. She has the same human rights I do. She can get the same education. She can vote. She can do anything, legally, a man can do -- far more than many Eastern countries.

- religous fanatics use body power and in europe they use mental power to kill everything feminine in a woman and evrything masculine in a man.

Again, translation problems.

A girl is laughed at if she doesn'T dress to attract man , if she seeks for family and they even have no protection of becoming an object?

Again, translation problems.

this democratic system is only made to fulfill "low material wishes" of the masses - and defending them is called defending human rights - humanity is going far away from nature forgetting that we are part of it, that roles of man and woman are not equal, they are different,it doesn'T mean somebody is worse.

But the human rights should be. If they are human, they deserve human rights. Period.

Perhaps USA is defending democracy, but this democracy defension is equal to dictatorship, bacuse you do not want anywhere to evolve a way of life different of Yours, You do not want to accept different(with you I mean the USA not you personally), what is the difference?

As long as each resident of the country is granted equal rights, democracy is not needed. You can be as different as you want -- as long as you grant basic human rights to all.

The difference is only after genciding the native America you left direct violence upon your citizens , chaning it to halfinformation-propaganda violence and creating animallike immages in people through films.
I am glad , nobody has to fear for his life, but what the USA promote is equal to breath being death inside.

I assume this is more language barriers.

[COLOR="rgb(85, 107, 47)"]In some cases, that may be the issue -- but I think it has more to do with the size of disposable income the government can afford to spend on military. If only 1% of a government's budget is spent on a military, the US is going to have far more troops to lend to the US.

In addition, many of these countries simple have not offered troops to the UN to use. Iran, for instance, has not offered peacekeeping troops until recently -- so they could not possibly have been used. [/COLOR]
How can military resolve problems of one nation and specially not knowing the nation and beeing a stranger? This is not peace.

What does that have to do with the quote of mine -- or even anything? I don't understand what you are asking.

Yes and no. All humans have basic rights, such as free speech, and freedom to select their own religion, the right to safety and a few other basics. The UN recognizes these rights, and all member countries ratified the agreements. This simplifies issues, in that many of these cases it is *not* an outside state -- the states themselves agreed to these rights.

Not only that, but I think that morally and ethically, it is the obligation of each and every human on this planet to protect the rights of everyone else. This is *not* an issue of politics, but rather an issue of basic human rights. Regardless of what country a person resides in they deserve their basic rights.
The UN is a political organization, their agreement cannot focus a nations will even , bacuase the nations didn't decide, bacuse a state is not always a nation even....

Actually, many of the countries I assume we are talking about agreed to the UN Declaration of Human Rights: Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I see Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and Turkey all signed. So they did decide. Even before they signed it, here is a list of the countries that *drafted* it: Australia, Belgium, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Chile, China, Egypt, France, India, Iran, Lebanon, Panama, Philippines, United Kingdom, United States, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uruguay and Yugoslavia.

Basic human rights are a theory- the human has not only rights, he has also basic obligations - to continue his race, to aquist knowledge and to do welfare, without those obligations human rights are a poison.

I agree. And among those obligations is protecting the rights of those that cannot protect themselves.

You cannot compare the right of free speech of a gay fulfilling his wishes with the right of a culturally wise person in warning on the populations mental health - but they have the same right of speech in the democratic system now.

What's with your obsession with homosexuality?

Anyway, you are right, they do have equal rights to free speech. Combine that with equal education, and you have no problems, because everyone is a culturally wise person -- or should be.

Free speech does not include the right to force others to listen. It simply means that you are welcome to talk. People can listen if they want, or they can walk away. Or they can retort and correct you, because they have the right to free speech, too.

To tell shortly I would call it " Do harm without using direct power".

Again, something was lost in translation.

The USA are not a judge, neither are the UN.

You are right. In a perfect world, each and every man is the judge, and the US and UN are simply carrying out the will of the people. That's what they strive for.

that is all for today- I am tired - best wishes!

[randolph85]

atheism is played out, its not hip, cool, or interesting. professing a lack of belief is attention *****dom.

[kakargirl]

I have question,Do you think a person could survive if a bomb exploded right next to him or her, or if a grenade went off in their hands .