[Batsy]

DanSC wrote:

Just as the forerunner to the USA helped win the French & Indian War. However, we don't count victories that occurred before we became a nation.

Unlike some people...

*Ahem*

trollololololololololololo

Stop talking rubbish.

The Commonwealth - and its predecessor the British Empire - is the only power which fought both world wars from beginning to end.

In both world wars, however, the US sat by and did nothing for the first few years.

[DrCaleb]

Psudo wrote:

DrCaleb wrote:

So what is preferrable to talk?

The point is that support or opposition to the Commonwealth does not determine whether or not there will be talk. The talks and diplomacy will be there with or without the Commonwealth, so what does the Commonwealth provide exactly?

Quote:

These include the promotion of democracy, human rights, good governance, the rule of law, individual liberty, egalitarianism, free trade, multilateralism, and world peace. The Commonwealth is not a political union, but an intergovernmental organisation through which countries with diverse social, political, and economic backgrounds are regarded as equal in status.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations

Psudo wrote:

DrCaleb wrote:

[The US] claims to support anti-poverty campaigns in Africa, yet most of the money it provides never leaves the US as it is eaten up by 'administrative costs'. For every dollar in aid, I've seen figures that less than 3 cents makes it to the African Farmer, or school girl who's future would include prostitution or forced labour if it weren't for western intervention.

You're right that something like 3% reaches the impoverished it is intended to help, but more than 90% leaves the USA. The "administrative costs" that ruin the US system of foreign aid are the foreign bureaucrats who absorb the aid without any valid reason. If we continue the aid we're criticized for supporting these corrupt governments, but if we discontinue the aid we're criticized for cutting aid to the poor. It's the same catch-22 as Oil For Food -- Saddam got his oil, but his people rarely got any food, and the only way for the US to fix any part of it is a radically unpopular and destructive war.

Continuing or discontinuing aid aren't the only choices. As Dr. Sachs said in 'The End of Poverty', the US insists on providing aid through it's own organizations specifically created to deliver that aid, which result in the 97% administrative costs instead of giving the aid to orgnaizations that already exist and were designed from the top down with low administrative costs in order to get more aid to the people who need it. But lobby groups won't permit it.

[DrCaleb]

Batsy wrote:

Quote:

As a former British Colony, it is eleigible - but countries like Mozambique and Rwanda have joined without being former British Colonies. But membership includes recognizing the Queen as head of the Commonwealth, and if I'm not mistaken US law excludes any foreign leader from having dominion over the US President. Hence, the US can never join.

The US is eligible to join the Commonwealth and would be able to if it desired.

Saying that the US cannot join the Commonwealth because the Commonwealth has a foreign head is complete tosh.

If that was the case then the US wouldn't have been able to join the UN and NATO, who both have non-Americans as heads.

However, the Queen is only the ceremonial Head of the Commonwealth. The real head is Kamalesh Sharma.

Like I said, 'If I'm not mistaken'. I'll readily admit I'm not a legal scholar, but I am prety sure that there is a provision in US law like that. I just don't know if it applies to this situation. The US also does not allow the UN or NATO (not a political org) to trump US domestic law.

[DanSC]

DrCaleb wrote:

The US also does not allow the UN or NATO (not a political org) to trump US domestic law.

Does any nation have a provision that treaties trump the highest domestic laws?

[Psudo]

You did not answer my question about the Commonwealth at all. Instead, you merely assumed I lacked general knowledge because you assume the worth of the Commonwealth is general knowledge and only ignorance would dispute it.

Maybe Dr. Sachs has some arguments I haven't heard before. Maybe he has some persuasive points. But he has his critics and skeptics, too. I'm inclined to be skeptical of him as a source, since he claims to have a solution to a problem that humanity has never before solved. I'm also skeptical of the 3% figure specifically: A quick look at Wikipeida shows that of the $39.5 billion budgeted for foreign aid agencies in 2009, $2.6 billion made it to Israel for military financing alone. That's already far more than 3%. Maybe the good Doctor has some information I don't, or is using some assumptions that differ from mine, or maybe he's talking out of his bum. I'll look into it.

[DrCaleb]

Psudo wrote:

You did not answer my question about the Commonwealth at all. Instead, you merely assumed I lacked general knowledge because you assume the worth of the Commonwealth is general knowledge and only ignorance would dispute it.

Inductive reasoning does not lead to logical outcomes. You asked one question, the link I provided answered it. I make no assumptions about you or level of knowledge in doing so.

Psudo wrote:

Maybe Dr. Sachs has some arguments I haven't heard before. Maybe he has some persuasive points. But he has his critics and skeptics, too. I'm inclined to be skeptical of him as a source, since he claims to have a solution to a problem that humanity has never before solved, but I'll at least stay off the topic until I study some more.

His book is well worth reading, and you have heard of his solution before. He championed the UN Millennium Project to have countries put up .7% (?) of GDP to end world hunger and poverty. I think the irony is that in 2007 it was estimated that it would have cost 5X less to end poverty than we've spent since then trying to deal with the symptoms.

http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/goals/index.htm

[Psudo]

DrCaleb wrote:

You asked one question, the link I provided answered it.

No it didn't.

DrCaleb wrote:

you have heard of his solution before.

No I haven't.

[DrCaleb]

Psudo wrote:

DrCaleb wrote:

You asked one question, the link I provided answered it.

No it didn't.

Q:The talks and diplomacy will be there with or without the Commonwealth, so what does the Commonwealth provide exactly?

A:[The values promoted by the Commonwealth] include the promotion of democracy, human rights, good governance, the rule of law, individual liberty, egalitarianism, free trade, multilateralism, and world peace.

It may not be the answer you were looking for, but it was an answer.

Psudo wrote:

DrCaleb wrote:

you have heard of his solution before.

No I haven't.

Odd. It was all over the news a few years back, and supported by the likes of US'2 Bono who was challenging world leaders to pony up. You might be one of the lucky ones who missed it in the news for all these years.

[Psudo]

Values are goals, not achievements. Especially when they're such generic aspirations, they do not constitute what an organization produces. And when Bono is mentioned, my attention is reflexively diverted elsewhere.

[Murray_Smith]

DrCaleb wrote:

Q:The talks and diplomacy will be there with or without the Commonwealth, so what does the Commonwealth provide exactly?

A:[The values promoted by the Commonwealth] include the promotion of democracy, human rights, good governance, the rule of law, individual liberty, egalitarianism, free trade, multilateralism, and world peace.

It may not be the answer you were looking for, but it was an answer.

The answer begs the question: What exactly makes the Commonwealth non-redundant, aside from exclusivity?

DrCaleb wrote:

Odd. It was all over the news a few years back, and supported by the likes of U2's Bono who was challenging world leaders to pony up. You might be one of the lucky ones who missed it in the news for all these years.

Bono only holds clout in democratic countries with a significant number of U2 fans. If Shades McEgo had any real political power, Aung San Suu Kyi would be running Burma right now.

[Zipperfish]

JJ wrote:

Lastly, I think it's a bit weak to suggest that the US has done "nothing" about things like torture and misogyny, considering the United States invaded and occupied two Middle-Eastern countries for quite a long time in, at least in part, an effort to wipe out such things.

Seriously? Seriously? Here's brief reminder:



The purpose of the invasion and occupation of Iraq was not an effort to wipe out torture. On the contrary, it made torture in the US a booming business. The stated purpose of the invasion of Iraq was to remove the threat posed by Saddam's WMD (of which there weren't really any).

To quote Tony Blair:

Quote:

Regime change in Iraq would be a wonderful thing. That is not the purpose of our action; our purpose is to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction…

Your post is revisionist drivel.

[Psudo]

An excellent example of stated values and material results differing.