What is the difference between the United Nations and the League of Nations?
Thanks for the A2A Kritarth Jha!The answer to this question is really long. But I will try to incorporate the dissimilarities which you will most likely need to know.Creation:-First, the inception of the League of Nations after the end ofthe World War in 1918, was with the sole purpose of preventing a 2nd World War. Although it failed in its purpose, it did pave way for the creation of a much more multi purpose organisation known as the United Nations.Work:-The League did not have any other focus except for preventing war, which it failed miserably at. The United Nations on the other hand, involves many committes which look after a multitude of sectors. WHO for Health, ILO for labour welfare, UNESCO, UNICEF, to name a few.Voting:-In the League of Nations, all members had an absolute right to any issue, call it veto. A single no from any nation killed the whole resolution. This was not carried forward to the United Nations except for the Security Council, wherein only the 5 Permanent members can practice this power of veto, on only substantive matters (not on procedural). Every other committee has some sort of a majority rule.Membership:-The League never became the universal organization that had been envisaged. Moreover, it failed to secure or retain the membership of certain major powers whose participation and cooperation were essential to make it an effective instrument for preserving the peace. Despite President Wilson's advocacy, the United States did not join, and the USSR joined only in 1934, when the League had already shown itself unable to contain the aggressive policies of Germany, Italy, and Japan. The three aggressor states themselves withdrew their membership during the 1930s to pursue their expansionist aims. The UN, on the other hand, is approaching the goal of universality, with only a few smaller countries still unrepresented. As of May 2016, UN has a membership of 193.If you need to know something more about it, hit me up :)
Why can't Americans come to a consensus on how to fix the country?
We can’t even come to a consensus that the country is broken. Or, rather, what aspects of the country are broken enough so as to require government intervention to “fix.”Think of the top three problems you think the country has right now. Seriously. Think of three of them, before you read my top three. Let’s see if we can even agree on the problems. I’m going to bet that half of the people reading this will have a completely different list than mine. Here’s what I think we should work on most urgently:Lowering taxes.Reducing the size and scope of the federal government (and transferring power to the state governments where necessary).School choice.If I were to ask my liberal wife for her top three problems the country should fix, she’d probably not even consider any of the ones on my list. Hers would be things like:Racism, sexism, and the other -isms.Economic inequality.Pollution.I’ve lived with this woman for almost 18 years now and we have three kids together, but we can’t even agree on what’s wrong with the country. What chance do 250m+ adult Americans have of coming to a consensus?
What is the difference between "copy (that)" and "Roger (that)"?
Copy that is used to acknowledge information while no need to act while roger that is used to acknowledge some information/instruction after which acknowledgee will 'act'.
Why did the US army leave Germany?
As others have pointed out, there is still a significant US military presence in Germany. But your question is correct in that we have pulled back our presence from it’s height after WWII and during the Cold War.Strategically, once the Cold War ended there was simply less of a need to have such a large and expensive force stationed abroad. After the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 there were several waves of troop drawdowns in Europe. I was a part of one of the more recent ones in the mid-2000s.For background, I was stationed in Germany from late 2002 – early 2007 (minus a year in 2003/2004 when I was in Iraq). My last two years I was one of two Port Operations officers for Northern Europe. Yes, the Army actually runs the ports, not the Navy! :-)We did a LOT of moving of equipment to/from Germany, almost all of it coming to/from Iraq, but not all. But there were certain units that we were packing up and sending back to the US permanently.Aside from the logical strategic reasons, I always wondered if it was at least in part tied to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s pledge to punish Germany for not supporting the invasion of Iraq. In my opinion 1) he seemed like the kind of guy who would carry through on a threat like that and 2) he was in his position long enough to make it happen.Who knows? But it makes for some good conspiracy conversations!If you really want some good background, here’s a really good article from Wikipedia that gives a much better overall picture than any of us could give you.