Let's just call that a bad example. South Korea asked for help because the North invaded.
That is why the UN voted to use force. The fact remains that the UN has the power to US force, to wage war, if there is a vote to do so.
I had heard of this and had completely forgotten this. Thanks for the reminder.
Should I mention former SS (Ex Otto Skorzeny) and Gestapo officers training Egyptian and Palestinian radicals in the 1950s? Yasser Arafat of PLO fame was one of them.
The "disturb the peace" line as a reaction to the concept of protest is a bit disconcerting.
Workers are paid to implement the vision of the owners, not indulge in their personal vision. If the two visions coincidentally align, that's awesome. But if not, that's why you are receiving a paycheck. To spend your time, to utilize company resources, to maintain the company's image, to fulfill ownership's vision. Your vision is for your time away from the company.
At work yes. Work is not a democracy.
Work is where you are literally paid to implement the vision of the owners, not your vision.
"An agency problem is a conflict of interest inherent in any relationship where one party is expected to act in the best interest of another.
Agency problems arise when incentives or motivations present themselves to an agent to not act in the full best interest of a principal.
Through regulations or by incentivizing an agent to act in accordance with the principal's best interests, agency problems can be reduced."
https://www.investopedia.com/t...
I mean, the UN is a place for the world to talk, but they simply have no power nor jurisdiction to go into a country and force anyone to do shit....
You are mistaken. The Security Council can do so, see the Korean War.
The people who designed the United Nations knew that force was necessary at times. That the failure of the preceding League of Nations was in part rooted in that it could yield no force.
The Security Council's ability to use force is greatly tempered by the veto powers of the permanent members, basically the main victors of WW2. The US basically blocks via veto much of the antisemitism of the general membership of the United Nations.
they haven't forgotten the holocaust and history. That's the feature they want,
The Palestinian authorities (ex Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) shared the same goal as the Nazis, to remove all Jews from their territories, Hitler met with the Mufti and was sympathetic. He abandoned the idea of deporting Jews to Palestine, focusing on extermination instead. The Mufti was aware of this and did not care.
The tragedy is that nobody actually wants peace enough to make it happen.
I'm fairly sure that on both sides, there are plenty of people who just want to live there in peace.
Not in Hamas. The Palestinians have little to no hope unless they reject and overthrow Hamas.
All it takes to permit atrocities is to
... is to support or aid Hamas. Both atrocities against Israeli and against Palestinians.
Conflating Hamas and the Palestinian people is one of the dumbest and most counterproductive ideas out there.
All of your good intentions will backfire if Hamas is allowed to retain control. I'm sorry but that is reality. Things are more complicated than your radical professor, online friend, coworker, etc told you.
If European Jews had come to Palestine like Indonesians come to Arabia, no one would have had an issue.
The returning Jews were not treated as the Indonesians were. Indonesians were fellow Muslims and are tolerated, Jews were not.
After all jews lived in Palestine under the Ottomans and previous Islamic empires in peace.
The Palestinians did not tolerate Jews like the Turks. The Palestinians wanted a Palestine without Jews, as Hamas does today. Again, that is why they were such close allies with the Nazis during WW2. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem met with both Mussolini and Hitler to ensure that Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany would not deport Jews to Palestine. The Mufti preferred that they be exterminated in Europe. The Palestinians shared the same goal as the Nazis, to have no Jews in their territory. Hitler was sympathetic to this desire and exterminated rather than deport to Palestine.
The problem was Jews from Europe coming to Palestine and wanting to be in charge claiming to the British the Arabs are backward and should not be in charge even if they are the majority. Thats colonialism.
They did not think rulers like the Mufti should be in charge because he wanted the Jews exterminated. There was no way to survive but to avoid such leadership and establish peace at the village leadership levels. Hence some villages peacefully coexisting.
And with this devious and cunning plot, the US just _had_ to roll over and let it be done to them? Obviously, buying cheaper rare earths from China was completely and utterly without alternatives, _profits_ could have suffered without it!
It was allowed because US politicians are bought and paid for by China.
Nope. The Chinese Communist Party specifically targeted the US rare earth mining.
China hasn't targeted anyone with anything but cheap consumer goods and cheap well made infrastructure. West has been targeting itself with capitalist deindustrialization and American hegemony.
Nope. Your "deindustrialization" is part of China's predatory practices, which go far beyond consumer goods. China engaged in a rare earth price (RE) war to shut down an ethically run mine in California. Once shut down they partnered with the California mine to reopen with a requirement that all minerals be sent to China for processing, and control or RE production. RE cannot be sold, parts using them have to be manufactured in China.
Ford and GM have been crowing that consumers don't want EVs. So what harm can possibly come from letting China flood the market with EVs nobody wants? If Ford and GM are right, the Chinese makers will be shooting their own foot.
China will benefit from not have to comply with US labor and environmental standards. This will greatly reduce their costs. Also they will be willing to sell at a loss to destroy a foreign industry they consider strategic.
However, I have a feeling Ford and GM are being a little disengenous and the issue might be that people don't want Ford and GM base EVs at $65K a pop.
Actually Ford and GM are correct. Any new technology introduced to the market follows the same pattern. Its call the technology adoption life cycle. Basically, there is not one market. There are 5 markets, and the means and considerations of these market can differ wildly. To simplify things, lets just look at early adopters and the main market. Early adopters are wealthier, they tend to have homes that can be upgraded for charging, and with that such wealth and flexibility comes a willingness to try new things. EV has been wildly successful with early adopters. Now lets look at the main market, they typically have much more modest financial situations, many live in situations where they can't just install their own personal home charger, charging anxiety becomes more of a concern as a result. They are more likely to have battery problems in cold weather with cars that are outside 24/7. It really is selling to two wildly different markets, and bridging the gap from early adopters to main market is known to be a very difficult thing. That is where the US auto industry is at the moment, the early adopter market is saturated and the main market isn't sold on EVs yet.
It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats.
