Western nations push for UN sanctions against Syria

[Farnhamia]

After all this war, I presume that they will try to get Libya and all the other countries that had a revolution to brow huge loan from the IMF to try to improve their countries, but it will be also clear that the intentions of this nations will be to tax them highly so that they will continue to eat under them for a long time to come. This will give the Western power a place to generate revenue to rebuild their dilapidated economy.

If I understand you, and I'm not sure I do, you're saying that the West is helping the dissidents in the various Arab nations because they want to lure them into borrowing huge amounts of money from the IMF? And then the Western nations will tax the Arab nations? Is that correct? Tax other nations in order to revive their "dilapidated" economy?

[Patoma]

After all this war, I presume that they will try to get Libya and all the other countries that had a revolution to brow huge loan from the IMF to try to improve their countries, but it will be also clear that the intentions of this nations will be to tax them highly so that they will continue to eat under them for a long time to come. This will give the Western power a place to generate revenue to rebuild their dilapidated economy.

If I understand you, and I'm not sure I do, you're saying that the West is helping the dissidents in the various Arab nations because they want to lure them into borrowing huge amounts of money from the IMF? And then the Western nations will tax the Arab nations? Is that correct? Tax other nations in order to revive their "dilapidated" economy?

You got me right.

[Farnhamia]

If I understand you, and I'm not sure I do, you're saying that the West is helping the dissidents in the various Arab nations because they want to lure them into borrowing huge amounts of money from the IMF? And then the Western nations will tax the Arab nations? Is that correct? Tax other nations in order to revive their "dilapidated" economy?

You got me right.

Then how would the United States, for example, impose a tax on Syria?

[Patoma]

You got me right.

Then how would the United States, for example, impose a tax on Syria?

They hold a high ranking position in the IMF, do they not? The rest would be easy. It is all about spreading their sphere of influence.

[Euronion]

If the UN weren't so busy trying to disarm the world's law-abiding population (which was a hot topic this July, funny how only after that was over they got around to this), maybe they would've noticed sooner. Maybe, this wouldn't even be the same kind of problem it is today. Just maybe, wouldn't you think?

they have enough time to send an email to ask Max Berry to cease and dissist from using the UN's name and logo in Nationstates

[Farnhamia]

Then how would the United States, for example, impose a tax on Syria?

They hold a high ranking position in the IMF, do they not? The rest would be easy. It is all about spreading their sphere of influence.

Well, yes, that's true, the US does hold a high position in the IMF, but I still don't understand how we could impose a tax on Syria that would flow directly to our Treasury. I have to admit that the Wiki article on the IMF is singularly silent on the organization's funding, and what happens to the interest it charges on loans (if it does). I feel reasonably certain, however, that the interest is not divided up among the member nations.

As for spreading our sphere of influence, there are worse people in whose sphere a country could be. For all our mistakes, the US, at least, means well.

[Farnhamia]

If the UN weren't so busy trying to disarm the world's law-abiding population (which was a hot topic this July, funny how only after that was over they got around to this), maybe they would've noticed sooner. Maybe, this wouldn't even be the same kind of problem it is today. Just maybe, wouldn't you think?

they have enough time to send an email to ask Max Berry to cease and dissist from using the UN's name and logo in Nationstates

I hardly think it took the entire UN organization to do that. A couple of lawyers, perhaps.

[The Romulan Republic]

To some extent that is true. But saying something is Imperialism simply because the West does it is dishonest, bigoted, and intellectually lazy.

Perhaps you can enlighten me.

You really need this explained? Its pretty simple- assuming something is imperialism because someone you don't like does it without looking at the facts is dishonest and bigoted. That statement is self-evident.

[Patoma]

They hold a high ranking position in the IMF, do they not? The rest would be easy. It is all about spreading their sphere of influence.

Well, yes, that's true, the US does hold a high position in the IMF, but I still don't understand how we could impose a tax on Syria that would flow directly to our Treasury. I have to admit that the Wiki article on the IMF is singularly silent on the organization's funding, and what happens to the interest it charges on loans (if it does). I feel reasonably certain, however, that the interest is not divided up among the member nations.

As for spreading our sphere of influence, there are worse people in whose sphere a country could be. For all our mistakes, the US, at least, means well.

Why would it not make sense? Almost all this countries are reach in resources. If they could influence them, they could get huge deals with them.

The profits are sheared among nations and am sure due to the higher position that they do have, they would be making much more than say maybe Zimbabwe or some countries like that.

[Napkiraly]

Ah yes the old "It's Western imperialism!" argument. Do you seriously think if the situation was reversed that other nations wouldn't try to exploit and control the West?

[Patoma]

Perhaps you can enlighten me.

You really need this explained? Its pretty simple- assuming something is imperialism because someone you don't like does it without looking at the facts is dishonest and bigoted. That statement is self-evident.

Yes, you would think so. There are facts that clearly support my accusation. Why have NATO and its allies gone beyond their mandates in Libya? uuummmm, lets see,Could it be to influence the decision making? I would think so.

[Farnhamia]

Well, yes, that's true, the US does hold a high position in the IMF, but I still don't understand how we could impose a tax on Syria that would flow directly to our Treasury. I have to admit that the Wiki article on the IMF is singularly silent on the organization's funding, and what happens to the interest it charges on loans (if it does). I feel reasonably certain, however, that the interest is not divided up among the member nations.

As for spreading our sphere of influence, there are worse people in whose sphere a country could be. For all our mistakes, the US, at least, means well.

Why would it not make sense? Almost all this countries are reach in resources. If they could influence them, they could get huge deals with them.

The profits are sheared among nations and am sure due to the higher position that they do have, they would be making much more than say maybe Zimbabwe or some countries like that.

Yes, true, if we could get Syria and Libya and Egypt and other oil-rich nations to like us better, we might be able to get better deals with them. But any deal is two-way, you know. You sell us oil, we pay you with dollars. Everyone seems to enjoy having dollars, though I have admit that lately they aren't as strong as they could be. Still, what do you think happens? We say, "Give us the oil, silly Muslims, and we will let you live. Maybe," is that what you think?

[Patoma]

Ah yes the old "It's Western imperialism!" argument. Do you seriously think if the situation was reversed that other nations wouldn't try to exploit and control the West?

Does this justify the controlling of the entire world?

[Farnhamia]

You really need this explained? Its pretty simple- assuming something is imperialism because someone you don't like does it without looking at the facts is dishonest and bigoted. That statement is self-evident.

Yes, you would think so. There are facts that clearly support my accusation. Why have NATO and its allies gone beyond their mandates in Libya? uuummmm, lets see,Could it be to influence the decision making? I would think so.

I think that if the NATO did less than it has, or nothing at all, you would be asking why.

[Wikipedia and Universe]

Ah yes the old "It's Western imperialism!" argument. Do you seriously think if the situation was reversed that other nations wouldn't try to exploit and control the West?

Does this justify the controlling of the entire world?

Meh, like I said earlier:

Yeah, we are the Illuminati, we're coming for you so we can kidnap you and take you to our underground orgies. Resistance is futile.

[Farnhamia]

Does this justify the controlling of the entire world?

Meh, like I said earlier:

Yeah, we are the Illuminati, we're coming for you so we can kidnap you and take you to our underground orgies. Resistance is futile.

Don't you love how no one ever believes us when we tell them exactly what's going to happen?

[The Romulan Republic]

You really need this explained? Its pretty simple- assuming something is imperialism because someone you don't like does it without looking at the facts is dishonest and bigoted. That statement is self-evident.

Yes, you would think so. There are facts that clearly support my accusation. Why have NATO and its allies gone beyond their mandates in Libya? uuummmm, lets see,Could it be to influence the decision making? I would think so.

Perhaps. One could also argue that Gaddafi needed to be stopped, and that stepping beyond the original mandate was the only way to do so. Personally, I'm not sure if I entirely approve of how Libya was handled- though I do think some action against Gaddafi needed to be taken.

[An Intelligent Man]

Then how would the United States, for example, impose a tax on Syria?

They hold a high ranking position in the IMF, do they not? The rest would be easy. It is all about spreading their sphere of influence.

Do you live in the United States? If you do, you must be living in a very strange part. If not, that would explain just about everything.
Americans mainly base our political opinions around these vague ideologies about freedom, order, and equality. Taxing nations which we have imperialistically taken over is considered repulsive to at least 90% of the population. It will not happen.

[Patoma]

Why would it not make sense? Almost all this countries are reach in resources. If they could influence them, they could get huge deals with them.

The profits are sheared among nations and am sure due to the higher position that they do have, they would be making much more than say maybe Zimbabwe or some countries like that.

Yes, true, if we could get Syria and Libya and Egypt and other oil-rich nations to like us better, we might be able to get better deals with them. But any deal is two-way, you know. You sell us oil, we pay you with dollars. Everyone seems to enjoy having dollars, though I have admit that lately they aren't as strong as they could be. Still, what do you think happens? We say, "Give us the oil, silly Muslims, and we will let you live. Maybe," is that what you think?

You honestly think they are going to pay them well enough for their resources than if they don't depend on their support? I certainly don't.

[Patoma]

Yes, you would think so. There are facts that clearly support my accusation. Why have NATO and its allies gone beyond their mandates in Libya? uuummmm, lets see,Could it be to influence the decision making? I would think so.

Perhaps. One could also argue that Gaddafi needed to be stopped, and that stepping beyond the original mandate was the only way to do so. Personally, I'm not sure if I entirely approve of how Libya was handled- though I do think some action against Gaddafi needed to be taken.

No one is disagree with the fact that Qaddafi needs to be thought a lesson, but the NATO is not only interested in just getting Qaddafi to leave, but in having a big say in the future of the country.

[Farnhamia]

Yes, true, if we could get Syria and Libya and Egypt and other oil-rich nations to like us better, we might be able to get better deals with them. But any deal is two-way, you know. You sell us oil, we pay you with dollars. Everyone seems to enjoy having dollars, though I have admit that lately they aren't as strong as they could be. Still, what do you think happens? We say, "Give us the oil, silly Muslims, and we will let you live. Maybe," is that what you think?

You honestly think they are going to pay them well enough for their resources than if they don't depend on their support? I certainly don't.

I believe the Saudis make a very nice amount of money from oil revenue, as do quite a few other countries.

I don't think you're even hearing me, though. Like the old Armenian man in Saroyan's story, you aren't here to learn, you know.

[Patoma]

They hold a high ranking position in the IMF, do they not? The rest would be easy. It is all about spreading their sphere of influence.

Do you live in the United States? If you do, you must be living in a very strange part. If not, that would explain just about everything.
Americans mainly base our political opinions around these vague ideologies about freedom, order, and equality. Taxing nations which we have imperialistically taken over is considered repulsive to at least 90% of the population. It will not happen.

Yes you believe in those principles for your own selfish interests, but are against it when it comes to the outside world. At least that's what it clearly look like to me.

[Patoma]

You honestly think they are going to pay them well enough for their resources than if they don't depend on their support? I certainly don't.

I believe the Saudis make a very nice amount of money from oil revenue, as do quite a few other countries.

I don't think you're even hearing me, though. Like the old Armenian man in Saroyan's story, you aren't here to learn, you know.

Thats under a monarchy system. You think that if Saudi people were to have a revolution tomorrow against their king, the United State and Its allies wont try to influence it?

[Farnhamia]

I believe the Saudis make a very nice amount of money from oil revenue, as do quite a few other countries.

I don't think you're even hearing me, though. Like the old Armenian man in Saroyan's story, you aren't here to learn, you know.

Thats under a monarchy system. You think that if Saudi people were to have a revolution tomorrow against their king, the United State and Its allies wont try to influence it?

What does Saudi Arabia being a monarchy have to do with anything? And influence it how? You tell me, since I'm pretty sure you already know the answer you want.

[Patoma]

Thats under a monarchy system. You think that if Saudi people were to have a revolution tomorrow against their king, the United State and Its allies wont try to influence it?

What does Saudi Arabia being a monarchy have to do with anything? And influence it how? You tell me, since I'm pretty sure you already know the answer you want.

They are not a puppet state, therefore they dont have any obligations to do as the west commands, which wont be the case in many of this other countries.