28 out of 35 on the first try. got most on the second, and a few on the third. world geo was a long time ago.
Printable View
28 out of 35 on the first try. got most on the second, and a few on the third. world geo was a long time ago.
Well already they are a couple o' billion dollars in areas in payments to the UN. Anyway, the US doesn't have the best reputation at Peacekeeping, they are fine at the Peacemaking* missions but keeping the peace requires a little more delicacy, diplomacy and dedication.Quote:
Originally posted here by KorpDeath
That's pretty funny. I like the punchline.
This brings up an interesting issue.... After the "war in Iraq" should the U.S. pull all of it's troops out of U.N. "peace-keeping" missions around the world? I say, without hesitation, yes.
This question probably deserves it's own thread but I'm too lazy to start another thread....
* Don't you just love that term? Peacemaking through killing most of the opposition.
I had to learn all the countrys of the world a few days ago with their capitals... I forgot the capitals, but I had all of that thing correct. I only swapped turkmenistan and uzbekistan. In the netherlands, everyone has to learn this. We even learn in the US they don't learn this (so I mean not everyone here, for the not so bright light people). I think you could ask any dutchman to agree on that, it's just a fact. Fits in the survey again.Quote:
Originally posted here by Vigge
Lets find out if the quoted statement is really true:
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/jus...s/mapgame.html
I knew 8 before I tried this, how many can you get right on your first try?
That funny that you say that. I don't see ANY other country ponying up the cash and resources to go on these "peacekeeping" missions for the U.N., do you?Quote:
Originally posted here by Jupes
Well already they are a couple o' billion dollars in areas in payments to the UN. Anyway, the US doesn't have the best reputation at Peacekeeping, they are fine at the Peacemaking* missions but keeping the peace requires a little more delicacy, diplomacy and dedication.
* Don't you just love that term? Peacemaking through killing most of the opposition.
I'm sick of the int'l community and the bleeding hearts (funny the only time they are bleeding hearts is when their money is on the line) "peace activists", et al.
I'm all for the U.S. becoming isolationists once again. (I realize that's not going to happen because terrorists "woke the sleeping giant"... again, but I'd be fine if we were.) The int'l community bitched when we didn't get involved and they'll bitch when we do get involved. It's about time someone showed them for the losers they are.
On another note- So I hear the Russians have been spying for Saddam's regime, the same people they sought to oust in the 80's. I don't hear the int'l community bitching about that, Oh, I know why they aren't bitching, cause Russia is on THEIR side of the world.......... Somethings are just too simple. :D
P.S I got all but four on Vigge's geography test and it's been 13 years since I studied that. hehehe
:D
Yes sir, I do... and so does theQuote:
Originally posted by KorpDeath
I don't see ANY other country ponying up the cash and resources to go on these "peacekeeping" missions for the U.N., do you?
United Nations Department of Peacekeeping. I see 89 countries on that March 2003-list.
This is just for those of you that don't bother to look at the link Neg posted. There are 19 countries on that list that contributed more personnel than the US.... I'm actually disappointed to see that Canada isn't higher, peacekeeping should be a number one priority after internal affairs.
Peacekeeping has a bad rap in the US.
In "peacekeeping" and "containment" we got he crap kicked out of us in Korea, Viet Nam, Beirut....
jeez whenever the US dances on the UN leash the US military gets its clock cleaned.
Whenever the US military gets to run its own plan, it succeeds. Why don't all of those willy-nilly UN patriots provide the "peacekeeping" bodies and the US will provide the funding instead.
I spent 3+ years cruising the Med looking for trouble. After being to Spain, France, Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Tunisia (and a few other places unofficially) I can tell you that there's a reason Europe is referred to as the "Old World". I saw the most backward and socially repressed people that I'd ever seen. I saw the most polluted waters and saw the worst living conditions.
The US may not be the best place to live ( I say this knowing that we could improve our country) but compared to the other choices in the world... I'll stay put.
Dave
You list only one country that is in what is referred to as "The Old Europe" (France).
Yugoslavia? Not European. Turkey? Israel? Egypt? Tunisia? Most of them are not in the Mediteranean area, and definitely not European.
What is referred to as "The Old Europe" is WESTERN Europe. Here's a nice link to study the living standards in "The Old Europe". Your statement would be like me stating that you Americans don't even have television because I just saw a documentary on the Amish (whose origins are "Old European", but hey...).
For one month......March of 2003. Good example.Quote:
Originally posted here by Negative
Yes sir, I do... and so does the
United Nations Department of Peacekeeping. I see 89 countries on that March 2003-list.
Negative,
Maybe something was lost in the translation. I would like to think Spain, Italy, France and Greece were part of Europe. Yugoslavia doesn't exist as Yugoslavia anymore, but it wasn't in Asia, most maps would show it as Europe. Turkey I could place in Middle Asia. Those and the rest of the countries I listed are indeed on the Mediterranean Sea.
The standards of living I remember were discovered by experiencing the culture of the area. Talking to the people who live there. In the case of Italy, actually living with the local residents. The CIA fact book lets me know who has TVs, radios, phones and levels of education etc etc. Hardly a substitute for being there. Things have changed in those countries since I left the area in 1984, I'm sure.