Printable View
i've felt this post coming for a while now since there seems to alot of anti0un sentiment in america.
i just can't understand why this is so.
i myself belief that the un needs to be thinned out and un-beauracrised. but i believe it is necessary and performs a wholey good job and needs to be kept.
can someone please expalin to me why this is without the usual "those big boys are bullying us" type answers without proper explanations.
The majority of nations which comprise the UN are not democracies, nor are they free nations in any real description of the term. Perhaps it's fine for someone to represent those nations, but there's no reason why we should be lumped in with them.
The UN's anti-Americanism is blatant, wherein they can't hold a single summit on any problem without seeking (and finding) a way to blame whatever the problem addressed is on the USA. While persons who dislike the USA and would like to see us "taken down a notch" may find this a good or even joyful thing, there is no reason the United States should support it--and isn't it somebody else's turn to host this freak-show by now, anyway?.
The UN's appointments show that it is not even interested in the problems it pretends to address--such as a summit on arms control headed by Iraq and Iran, or placing Libya as the head of the Civil Rights Committee.
The UN's other actions are not just wrong, or sins by omission, or even petty, but plain and simply evil, and must be stopped. The Oil-for-Food scandal truly doesn't count among these issues, not compared to the other things they've done. Among them is their deliberate decision to stand aside in Rwanda and subsequent refusal to protect Tsutsi refugees from Hutus bent on the utter annihilation of their rival tribe, more of the same in Bosnia, and rampant rape and 'forced prostitution' (wherein someone commits rape, then later gives the victim money or gifts so that they can claim it was prostitution rather than rape) in the Congo.
The United States not only has no need to support this organization, it is a moral imperative that we condemn it and withdraw all support.
UN? United Nig...Nations :love:
Until they get real power then they are useless. They are good organization but they first need to change how they do things slightly. I hate that the 5 perminant members on the board all have to vote yes to something. As was proven with Iraq, the big 5 don't always vote for what might be right. They voted for political gain and they were going around sanctions. The big 5 shouldn't have that kind of power. Maybe just 3 out of the 5 have to approve with over half of the 15. That would clear up political motivations.
The US is in a lose-lose situation with regard to the UN. Whether everything that goes on in the UN is corrupt or not can be debated, much the same as whether much of what goes on in the US is corrupt, but the heart of the issue deals with ego. Since the UN "represents" the countries of the world, whenever the US or any country turns their back on the UN, it makes it appear as if the US is turning its back to the world, which if that IS the case, can only end in the turmoil and tragedy.
Take care all.
no one has said that the UN is anti american were do you get your sources from? A 2 to 6 hour internet research?One thing about it right now i know now is the who wants o represent the USA in the UN hates teh UN.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Yes, John Bolton certainly is a controversial choice, though a lot of conservatives have voiced concerns over him, so his selected is no longer a given.
Take care all.
So...your source of analysis is from a bunch of nazi conservatives? Oh yeah. Thats the way to get your news :rolleyes2
So your way of avoiding the problem of the facts not being on your side is to call your opponents Naziz? Oh yeah. That's the way to debate.Quote:
So...your source of analysis is from a bunch of nazi conservatives? Oh yeah. Thats the way to get your news
I learned from you...OOOOOOOOOOOO :laugh:
I called them Nazis because at the time I couldn't think of the actual political ideology that they were. But I just remembered it. I would like to substitute nazi for Facists.
Also I can't avoid the facts if they aren't there to begin with...OOOOOOOOOOOH BURN! :laugh:
And what, pray tell, did the United States do in regards to Rwanda?Quote:
Among them is their deliberate decision to stand aside in Rwanda
Also, I hope nobody seriously believe that the united states is morally superior to the Un (or anyone, for that matter) The UN has done bad things, yes. But the United States commits attrocities. Period. Everybody does. So to say that we should not associate with the UN because they have done bad things when we ourselves do equally bad things is kind of hypocritical, don't you think?
Nazi's were conservatives dude.Nazi's were/is the extremist conservative.That person isn't hiding beind it.Just because he said Nazis or used an example blah blah balh.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
So you're calling your opponents fascists to avoid the problem of the facts not being on your side. Not quite as bad, I guess.Quote:
I called them Nazis because at the time I couldn't think of the actual political ideology that they were. But I just remembered it. I would like to substitute nazi for Facists.
However, the facts here are cited for you to look at--which is why you had to resort to Reductio ad Hitlerum instead.Quote:
Also I can't avoid the facts if they aren't there to begin with...OOOOOOOOOOOH BURN!
And obviously, avoiding the facts is not a feat which you have any difficulties performing.
The United States wasn't in Rwanda to do something regarding it.Quote:
And what, pray tell, did the United States do in regards to Rwanda?
Of course we do--it's obvious fact.Quote:
Also, I hope nobody seriously believe that the united states is morally superior to the Un (or anyone, for that matter)
Actually, the Nazis were green socialists. That's liberal, not conservative.Quote:
Nazi's were conservatives dude.Nazi's were/is the extremist conservative.
I agree with many American conservatives that the UN is ineffectual, corrupt and in dire need of reform.
I just don't want to see it become an American puppet organisation in doing so.
Economically liberal. Socially conservative (authoritarian).Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
Dude, the Nazis were THE most conservative party that has ever been on the face of this earth. Conservative as in they are fanatical about conserving and protecting the values they believe in to the point where they'd murder millions and start wars. The fact they have 'socialist' in their party name means nothing. Just like 'the Republib of Syria' doesn't really mean it's a republic, or like 'the Democratic Front' is actually a blood-thirsty Islamic terror organisation. Words can easily be averted.Quote:
Actually, the Nazis were green socialists. That's liberal, not conservative.
I think some of you need to look up the definition of conservatism.
I called the facists because they are far to the right and facisim is the furthest thing to the right. That is how I view them. If someone were to post a site that had people really to the left then I would called them no nothing hippies.
Some facts are there but not many. It is the way they present everything which makes them a laughable source to quote anything from. Anti-US? Sure...why not? Look at it the other way around it the US is Anti-World.
The rest of the world tends to be pretty liberal while our current administration is really conservative. Put the interest of our current administration up against them and of course they will vote against it. If you were to look at the voting records from the 1990-1999, I bet it would be a lot different.
About avoiding the facts. Once again, I learned from you and your lack of stuff on everything from the economy to the confederacy. :rolleyes2:
getting off topic again guys and the flaming is rising.
redneck you say the US wasn't in rwanda to do somthing about it. the UN were only there in 80 peacekeepers. the un isn't a single nation with an army of it's on. those peacekeepers come from member states. uk, france, us, germany, japan. what prevents a larger number of peace keepers being sent is refusal by these nations. more should have been done in rwanda. like right now more should be done in zimbabwe, burma and sudan. and it is up to the nations in the UN to push to get this done. otherwise it is a failure of humanity.
more needs to be done in this world and not by individual nations with their own agendas but for the benefit of the world. this is what the UN sets out to acheive. yes i believe it should be slimmed down. the veto removed and it's powers strengthened. i would like to see actions not words on forcing the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, on protecting human rights, on genocide, on poverty and disasters. slimming down the UN is the way to make this more effecient.
but i don't believe it is a corrupt system. it is a way to prevent a repeat of two disastorous wars. that is what uni-lateral action can and will at one point lead to. i believe the us needs to come back into the un.
iraq and iran both had a right to be on the council for arms control. iraq having had it exercised against them with great effect and iran who at that time (and in my mind right now) were not considered a threat. libya on the other hand must e on the human rights council to prevent another versailles like problem with her being forced to sign a treaty she had not seen.
the us needs to be "lumped in" with countries that you may count as inferior. because belive it or not you are lumped in with them anyway. that's the way the world works. each of these countries and their decisions will have a direct effect on the us. you cannot set up a higher plateau for the us for which it can shout "we're better than you and can do what we want" because as world events have shown. you can't. and that's the way the un should be as well. we all have to share this earth and the borders we set up in it so we should all share the decisions taken for it.
please if this thread is to continue no more flaming. we need rational discussion. if this does not happen could an admin please just close this thread without anyone passing a warning on the goodness of their judgement *not been having much lunk with these threads)
edczxcvbnm i do hope that first post of yours wasn't racist.
They nationalized their industry--that puts the "socialist" part at somewhat more than name. Likewise their actions regarding 'green space', forests, animal rights, etc., puts action behind the "green" part. An authoritarian government is neither conservative nor liberal, nor is Hitler what you get when you gin up a conservative.Quote:
Dude, the Nazis were THE most conservative party that has ever been on the face of this earth. Conservative as in they are fanatical about conserving and protecting the values they believe in to the point where they'd murder millions and start wars. The fact they have 'socialist' in their party name means nothing.
So someone farther to the right than you, you call fascist? Well, now that we've got that cleared up.....Quote:
I called the facists because they are far to the right and facisim is the furthest thing to the right.
Which is why we send them our evil medicines and our evil, evil food when they were very happy dying....Quote:
Sure...why not? Look at it the other way around it the US is Anti-World.
Well, seeing as you've managed to avoid every fact I've put in front of you, you're learning well.Quote:
About avoiding the facts. Once again, I learned from you and your lack of stuff on everything from the economy to the confederacy.
Actually, the UN admitted to "lacking the political will".... In many cases, they simply stood aside and allowed the slaughter to happen--while they may not have been able to stop all of it, they didn't bother to even stop what was going on right in front of them.Quote:
edneck you say the US wasn't in rwanda to do somthing about it. the UN were only there in 80 peacekeepers.
Iraq being the country that kicked out the inspectors, and Iran being the country currently working on attaining nuclear weapons?Quote:
raq and iran both had a right to be on the council for arms control. iraq having had it exercised against them with great effect and iran who at that time (and in my mind right now) were not considered a threat.
Libya has to be the head of the UN Human Rights committee to stop them from having to sign a treaty they hadn't seen?Quote:
libya on the other hand must e on the human rights council to prevent another versailles like problem with her being forced to sign a treaty she had not seen.
Wrong. We do not need to be 'lumped in' with dictatorships and islamofascist nations that long for our destruction, nor do we need to lend legitimacy to their actions.Quote:
the us needs to be "lumped in" with countries that you may count as inferior.
Yes, we can, and we should. That's how Iraq got liberated and Communism defeated. And while the United Nations was created too late to be useless against Nazism and Fascism, the League of Nations had plenty of time.Quote:
you cannot set up a higher plateau for the us for which it can shout "we're better than you and can do what we want" because as world events have shown. you can't.
In other words, they have plenty of ability to do what they shouldn't do, and apparently none to do what they should. Moreover, there's no reason the United States should continue to support and fund a group that is essentially anti-American. While they have every right to be anti-American, our government should not use our money to pay people to downtalk us.
LAst time i checked redneck the NAZI party set up a Fascist Government.Thus that makes them conservatives.
also for CLoud 9.How is edczxcvbnm post racist?
BTW USA wasn't in the League Of Nations.
Last time I checked, conservatives weren't fascists--unless you ask edczxcvbnm, apparently.Quote:
LAst time i checked redneck the NAZI party set up a Fascist Government.Thus that makes them conservatives.
I'm fairly certain she was referring to when he said "UN? United Nig...Nations" with a smilie.Quote:
also for CLoud 9.How is edczxcvbnm post racist?
ones again redneck Fascism is as conservative as you can get.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
okay well this will be last pot on the nazis in here before this post is closed. tha nazis were both socialist and fascists. hence their name. public ownership of industry - socialist (but carried out by most war time countries anyway). stealing this from jews - not so socialist. weren't very keen on the whole socialist few on the equality of man either.
that's the end of that.
rwanda and the un..... the un actually has no political will. not being a nation it can't do. it has a collective political will. which therefore means that in-action in rwanda was the flaw of nations not the un. the un is an empty vessel filled with nations. not a nation itself and therefore cannot act as one. the entire world lacked will on rwanda.
iraq being the country which had the vast vast vast majority of it's weapons destroyed. iran while at the time is *alleged* on a nuclear weapons program at their time of appointment were not. libya... is improving, it took resposibilty of lockerbie and has improved over the last years. being the chair of a un group does not mean that you in fact control it. it would be hugely unfair (and one of the reasons for the second world war) to force any kind of action upon them without them at least at first being involved in it.
the us is alerady lumped in with dictatorships and islam. that's what we call this world. the us is in the state it's in because it will not cooperate with multi-lateral action. why you are stuck in iraq with nothing to do but have body bits thrown over your soldiers. why the middle east crisis has perpetuated for so long with very little movement or action.
america is not on a higher level than the rest of the world. it is part of the world and should start acting a such. it cannot go round doing what it likes and thinking that it doesn't need to reap the concequences of what it shows. 9-11 showed that. iraq shows that you cannot act on your own and expect for things to run smoothly. same with vietnam. will it take th detruction of another few thouand lives to wake america up to the fact that it needs to take responsibilty for it's actions and cannot live as it see fits in a world that contains a few billion more people?
the un isn't anti-american. it is a collection of nations from around the world. and so if it must be said. the world is anti-american. why does noone question why?
Anyways im gonna have to stay with Redneck on this one when he says, that the UN doesnt like the US, but im also gonna say the US doesnt like the UN.
I mean look at the countries that make up the UN: China, Germany, France to name some of the biggest players, and if u look at the polls done around and during the Invasion of Iraq, the world sentiment, was "The United States is the greatest threat to world security." And if i remember correctly Iraq, Iran, and North Korea were also options in the poll. Also the UN's lack of wanting to respond to many things, with the force thats nessecary is what most Americans have against them.
On the contrary, i dont think anything has shown that we cant do what we want. Not that we did the right thing, just that i dont think anyone has "checked" the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Israel was second. The UN is controlled, and has its nuts grabbed by Islamic and third-world countries. Most of the actions that take place on behalf of the UN are either inconsequencial and virtually un-important (peace-keeping, etc), and others have a blatant anti-western taste to them. Therefore, the UN shouldn't be taken too seriously at this point in history.Quote:
"The United States is the greatest threat to world security."
So the UN is an 'empty vessel' that has no political will, and therefore had to deliberately stand aside and allow a slaughter?Quote:
rwanda and the un..... the un actually has no political will. not being a nation it can't do. it has a collective political will. which therefore means that in-action in rwanda was the flaw of nations not the un. the un is an empty vessel filled with nations. not a nation itself and therefore cannot act as one.
So apparently Iraq destroyed all of its weapons and then kept kicking the UN inspectors out and fooled the intelligence network of every nation that had an intelligence network into thinking they were still there just because it wanted to be contrary?Quote:
iraq being the country which had the vast vast vast majority of it's weapons destroyed.
"Alleged" now means "possibly not enough evidence to convince OJ's Jury"?Quote:
ran while at the time is *alleged* on a nuclear weapons program at their time of appointment were not.
If Libya has improved, it ain't been by much. And while being the chair of a UN group does indeed not mean that you control it, it does mean that you lead it, and have a large amount of influence with that group. And if forcing Libya to acknowledge the humanity of its citizens whether it wants to or not is unfair to Libya's government... who cares? Screw 'em. However, the UN putting Libya at the leadership of the Human Rights Committee proves that they have no real interest in promoting human rights.Quote:
libya... is improving, it took resposibilty of lockerbie and has improved over the last years. being the chair of a un group does not mean that you in fact control it. it would be hugely unfair (and one of the reasons for the second world war) to force any kind of action upon them without them at least at first being involved in it.
It's why we brought freedom to Iraq, and the UN didn't. That may indeed cause problems for the UN... tough luck, they had their chance to fix the problem and they defended a genocidal dictator to protect their oil contracts.Quote:
the us is in the state it's in because it will not cooperate with multi-lateral action. why you are stuck in iraq with nothing to do but have body bits thrown over your soldiers.
We feed the world, we defend the world, and American-designed technology uplifts the world. Yes, we are on a higher level than the rest of the world.Quote:
america is not on a higher level than the rest of the world.
9-11 was a 'consecqence' of what America 'sewed'? That is not only blatantly false, but disgusting.Quote:
it cannot go round doing what it likes and thinking that it doesn't need to reap the concequences of what it shows. 9-11 showed that.
Well though i think its a tasteless statement, RN he may be right, just not for the reasons he provided. We did train Bin Laden, and the people of Al Qaeda when they fought the Soviet Union, so i just u could say our creation came back and bit us in the ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
Meh. We dont have to question why. Thats the problem the rest of the world faces. We in the United States are critical to every aspect of the world, we are everywhere and have our hands in everything that goes on all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
We did train people in Afghanistan, but there were two groups of people fighting the Soviet Union.Quote:
We did train Bin Laden, and the people of Al Qaeda when they fought the Soviet Union, so i just u could say our creation came back and bit us in the ass.
People native to Afghanistan recieved training, some support, and weapons (including the famous Stinger shoulder-fired rocket) from the US. The other group was called Afghan Arabs--Arabs from other lands who came to Afghanistan to fight off the Infidel. We didn't help them for a few reasons--primary among them is that they'd shoot us if we tried.
There were two operatives directing the CIA's operations in that area, and while both of them had a large part in funding various groups, neither had any recollection of working with bin Laden.
Bin Laden commanded no troops, stayed in Afghanistan (EDIT--stayed in PAKISTAN, where the war was not taking place), and even then hated America so much that Americans passing by his compounds were instructed not to speak english because they would be attacked if someone overheard them.
So not only would funding bin Laden have come back to bite us, but it wouldn't have done any good in the first place, because he wasn't doing any fighting.
"We feed the world, we defend the world, and American-designed technology uplifts the world. Yes, we are on a higher level than the rest of the world."
That, in my opinion, is why we are also universally reviled by the rest of the world. America, like every other country has little clout left to take the moral high ground on anything anymore since we're just as guilty in countless genocides that go on unchecked in Africa, in South America and in Central America.
Instead of considering that we are the highest forms of humanity on the planet, I think it would be wise for all of us, especially Americans, to attempt to live up to the ideals for which we try to represent.
Take care all.
Nah. I just like making ackward jokes of that sort. Throws people off from what they expect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
the un can't have stood aside at rwanda. the countries in the un stood aside with rwanda. that includes the us.
iraq had two main goals after th first gulf war. to keep power and not be bombed and invaded. to appear powerful a nice few nukes will do that. but not allowed them. so what you can do is appear like you have them while showing that you have destroyed them. their neighbours aren't going to invde becausr they think they have weapons while the un is content because it has seen what it needs to.
alleged means the us claims it and iran denies it and there is no conrete proof to prove it.
on the contrary to feeding and defending the world many world argue you starve, control and imperialise the world and only defending and feeding when it sees fit.
9-11 was a concequence of american actions. 9-11 didn't happen because a few got bored one morning and there was no good tv on and they fancied a good chuckle. they choose one country, one set of buildings with one aim and one motive.
911 was a result of hatred towards the Western world, its way of thinking, ideaology, and actions. The United States stand at the spear-head of the Western world, with its powerful economy, influencial media and cultural icons and norms. The Islamic terrorists despise those signs and symbols, and sought to harm and damage them - and they did so on the eleventh of September, 2001. The events of that day were NOT acts of retaliation or any sort of a counter-attack or counter-measures - it was a display of prowess, audacity, hatred, and an open decleration of war.Quote:
9-11 was a concequence of american actions.
The UN did stand aside at Rwanda, among other things. The leader of the General Assembly ordered them to deliberately stand aside and allow the slaughter. This was not, in any way, shape, or form, a decision of the US.Quote:
the un can't have stood aside at rwanda. the countries in the un stood aside with rwanda. that includes the us.
So you're telling me that Sodom obeyed the resolutions, but just pretended that he hadn't?Quote:
iraq had two main goals after th first gulf war. to keep power and not be bombed and invaded. to appear powerful a nice few nukes will do that. but not allowed them. so what you can do is appear like you have them while showing that you have destroyed them.
And when they say flat-out that they're going forward with it? How much evidence do you need--are you looking to see Manhattan under a mushroom cloud instead of underwater?Quote:
alleged means the us claims it and iran denies it and there is no conrete proof to prove it.
And those people are mighty short on evidence. Meanwhile, who does everybody run to when there's a disaster?Quote:
on the contrary to feeding and defending the world many world argue you starve, control and imperialise the world and only defending and feeding when it sees fit.
Yup--as Al-Quaeda's "Prince" in Iraq, Al-Zarqawi, appointed to his position by bin Laden, says, "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology," And ""Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion... [qhich is] against the rule of God."Quote:
-11 was a concequence of american actions.
If only we would have nationwide forced-conversion to islam, stick all our women in hajibs or abiyahs or burkhas or whatever else they're called (except the ones we stone to death), abolish democracy, and help them kill Jews, they would become our best buddies...
The United States should not only leave the UN, but form a different organization. Iraq and Afghanistan, now that they're free nations, Israel, Taiwan, Austrailia, and the Eastern European nations freed by Ronaldus Maximus. An organization in which democratic countries can work for common goals and against common enemies, rather than paying our money into an organization intent on dragging us down to the level of the lowest common denominator.
it looks that way with sadamma really seeing that he never denied yet but noone found anything. chances are they never found anything because he never had any or........ as you would have me believe he made some top secret ultra hidden diding place for all his weapons programs. had no intention of using them. but hid them all stowed away in the middles of the desert as a handy paper weight.
you're link about iran actually proves me correct. having a nuclear program is not a crime. they have a nuclear program which is no big deal. kinda need one to have nuclear power. they dent any nuclear weapons. the un says the have nuclear weapons. the only person that think they have nuclear weapons is america and isreal. and so to deal witht he problem the want to stamp anpther muslim country into the ground. which is why maybe the muslim world hate you so much.
you don't feed africa. your bank charge huge interest rates to starve the people to death. you stand back in sudan, in burma, in zimbabwe, in korea, in ethiopia. you just called yourself the defender of humanity so explain to me why these countries have not warranted your attention.
the jihad against america is not based on religion. hence why they've never bothered bombing france, sweden, norway, italy. they bomb you out of all the countries in the world because of the things you have done.
You know, saying that the WTC attacks were a result of America's actions is like saying a person was mugged because he had too much money.
actually it's like saying going up and punching men in bars/pubs is going to end up with you having a beer bottle in your face.
"you don't feed africa. your bank charge huge interest rates to starve the people to death. you stand back in sudan, in burma, in zimbabwe, in korea, in ethiopia. you just called yourself the defender of humanity so explain to me why these countries have not warranted your attention."
That in essence, was my point in that no country exists right now that can claim moral superiority to another since all of us were guilty of turning the other way when millions were being slaughtered, and still are in fact.
Take care all.
Simply put not even the super power of the world can be everywhere at once... infact we haven't even solved our problems at home..
You know I wouldn't try to force a company to sell to me when they are having problems... it is likely to be a subpar product.
Yet the US is demanded upon, the US does what it can.. but you can't do everything, and everyone and everycountry has lapses of thought. I am certian that the people during the cold war really thought that communism was a threat large enough to warrant what was done then, though in hindsight we can find some/several mistakes.
Hindsight may be 20/20 but regularly we don't see so well.
So why doesn't swedan take up the burden of protecting the world? yes they aren't as powerful, but overall they probably have a similar chance of acheiving it as the US.
Also keep in mind few countries these days seem willing to cooperate with the US. If you won't cooperate with the US why should the US cooperate back?
From what I have read and heard the US has been willing to take many compromises... but yet other countries give up little... how can that be? A marriage won't work htat way unless you have an amable partner.. but the US isn't amable.
The UN has problems... the Countries in it(including the US) have problems, and very few will see eye to eye, or will compromise. So we are at the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" stage.. and that won't accomplish much in diplomacy.. not quite the same as war.
"Simply put not even the super power of the world can be everywhere at once... infact we haven't even solved our problems at home.."
That may be true, but the question still is, why Iraq and not Sudan or Rwanda or South America or Central America? That's what bothers me, that we went into Iraq under less than ideal circumstances when many more obvious places were calling for help.
Take care all.
it isn't about time, resources or money. saving africa from debt could be done with the simple swipe with a pen and would cost about the same as invading another middle eastern country or destroying another multi-lateral community.
what comprmises has america taken recently? kyoto? nuclear non-proliferation? hans blinx? war cirmes court? human rights and war crimes? i see very little compromise when it comes to amercan policy.
it seesm with so little compromise and so much destruction it is little wonder countries will not cooperate with america.
the un though right now does need to be slimmed down, not in countries but in how it operates. get rid of the vetos for a start. though only to have caused a problem once in serbia (france never got to use it before the iraq war) it is something that needs to be ended. perhaps a greater representation of countries at the security council as well but with a smaller mandate. this is slowly happening but the un needs to be rebuilt before it is useful. i hate to admit it but it requires the worlds most powerful nation to be with it not undermining it constantly or jumping in head first. the us needs to be in the un to make it work successfully
what needs to happen now is for american to come back into the arms of the un so we can get started back on creating a better world for everyone not just for the richest and most powerful in this world. the sooner that happens the quicker and more effecient things get done.
Well I wasn't trying to advocate that we should just junk the un.. It needs fixed... before then it is useless. And unfortuneatly.. any changes, reasonable or no, will be viewed suspicious if the USA tries to push it. Perhaps another country can try? if not then the USA will have to go through with fixing it.. however it is viewed best fixed.. if that means complete rebuilding(3rd times a charm) like we did from the League of Nations to the United Nations.. then so be it.
WEll intelectually and morally cloud your right.But in real life.This will never happen.There will always be wars and even after america isnt a super power.There will be wars fought for many reasons.There will be conflict.Countries will always argue and bicker.As far as i can see.We need to shut down our space programs due to the fact that we can barely get along with people of our own species.Yeah sure if some outside force comes and invades we will become one but thats only when we fend off the invasion.Once that happens i think more bull between our own kind will come.The UN was a lot bettter than the league of nations because the UN actually tries to enforced there treaties.But treaties are useless.
It was asked why Iraq in this thread here is a quote of why.
If we were going to fight a war against any kind of mistreatment of people Iraq is a good place to start. However I do think things need solved at home.. but right now that needs to be done with reasearch.. before that is redirected, so we can find what is wrong, throwing money won't help. Thus we can throw money at war.. just wish the government would worry about fixing itself a bit more.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShunNakamura
Iraq is a bad palce to start.first of all it was all about the oil.Second of all the president lied to the people yet the people so so dang stupid to re-elect him.I mean why do people let families dynasties get set up in the political world.
Well I coudl care less for the real reason. But the points above were good points. Although the downside is that Iraq has oil.. and we have an oil guy in power.. meh... I don't let that concern me much.. Bush may be doing it for the oil(though I hear debate on that), however there are other viable reason for it, even if Bush didn't consider those.
And yeah.. I am anti-Bush and so was my school district.. or was it anit Kerry.. what ever it was, it was close.. like 51% to 49% cloes.
Actually, we know he had them for a fact, because he used them on his own citizens. Remember Halabja?Quote:
chances are they never found anything because he never had any or
Naw, he had highway signs reading "Baghdad, 250 Km, Secret Chemical Weapons Stash, 275 Km". Again, the intelligence network of every nation that had an intelligence network was certain he had them--what kind of necromantic powers do you suggest Eeeeeevil Bush used to convince them?Quote:
as you would have me believe he made some top secret ultra hidden diding place for all his weapons programs. had no intention of using them. but hid them all stowed away in the middles of the desert as a handy paper weight.
Nor did we say they're committing a crime--the problem is that they're paving the way to make nuclear weapons, unless you want to set up the same deal Clinton made with North Korea.Quote:
you're link about iran actually proves me correct. having a nuclear program is not a crime.
Not only our government but thousands of private organizations send food to Africa. Your claim is blatantly false.Quote:
you don't feed africa.
You mean when we hand out money we actually expect it back? Oh, the SHAME!Quote:
your bank charge huge interest rates to starve the people to death.
{quote]you stand back in sudan, in burma, in zimbabwe, in korea, in ethiopia. you just called yourself the defender of humanity so explain to me why these countries have not warranted your attention.[/quote]
In Sudan we're trying to work through the UN you're defending. In North Korea we're running the peace talks (although I agree we should just go in there and get rid of that little gargoyle). We're helping Zimbabwe in several ways--likewise Burma and likewise in Ethiopia. Next?
Actually, the jihadists have made it very clear that it is based on religion. Hence why they've never bothered bombing nations that aren't very Christian (although synagogues in those countries suffer from these strange architectural deformities that causes them to spontaneously combust....).Quote:
the jihad against america is not based on religion. hence why they've never bothered bombing france, sweden, norway, italy.
Ahh, the best course of actioin is for the US to embracean anti-American organization and give in to the claims of class warfare propogated by yourself and others who hate America....Quote:
what needs to happen now is for american to come back into the arms of the un so we can get started back on creating a better world for everyone not just for the richest and most powerful in this world.
I always wondered why we don't actually have their oil, if all these claims that we invaded them for oil had a shred of truth to them... Hell, if we wanted oil, we could have done it with one phone call--lift the sanctions.Quote:
Iraq is a bad palce to start.first of all it was all about the oil.
Again, false. The president--and every other nation--used the best intelligence they had. Certainly, if the protestors had any reason to believe Sodom didn't have chemical weapons, they would have brought it up before the war.Quote:
Second of all the president lied to the people yet the people so so dang stupid to re-elect him.
I always love how the people who claim Bush is a "dynasty" because his father was also president can watch Ted Kennedy climb out of Boston Harbor with a bottle of Chivas Regal in one pocket and a pair of panties in the other and hail him as the party's moral savior....Quote:
I mean why do people let families dynasties get set up in the political world.
I'm sorry t break it to you redneck but he lied to us striaght up.He said we were going into iraq because they have the ability to make nuclear arms.He told that to congress and convenced them.Iraq could barely fend off there neighbors let along make nuclear weapons.To tell me he used the best intelegence is bullhe smurfing lied and theres noting else to it dude.Open your eyes and wake up from the fantasy world that Fox News and bush has put oyu in dude and come back to reality.Once we found out Iraq didnt have any materials that could make nukes he made a bull
Paragraph indentations are your friends. They keep your eyes from bleeding.
As the 9/11 Commission, as well as many subsequent commissions to follow found and reported, the information used to get into Iraq was flawed beyond belief. The Bush Administration has essentially agreed to this by no longer refering to this information, by discrediting it themselves and by giving new reasons for the Iraqi invasion as opposed to the ones that were initially given during the State Of The Union address 3 years ago.
Take care all.
He said that there is evidence that Iraq was trying to gain nuclear weapons-for example, the British report that he was trying to obtain "yellowcake" uranium in Nigeria--despite the claims of his detractors, British did (and, as a matter of fact, still do) believe that Sodom was trying to get weapons-grade nuclear bomb materials--and last but not least, that he's been firing on our planes. How the hell do you claim an invasion was unauthorized when the SOB's been shooting at us for years?! Hate to break it to you (well, not really, but it's nice to say...), but your accusation is false.Quote:
sorry t break it to you redneck but he lied to us striaght up.He said we were going into iraq because they have the ability to make nuclear arms.
He also said that Sodom was refusing to cooperate with the UN (also true) that he was violating several other weapons regulations (also true), that he was abusing the Oil-for-Food program (also true), and that he was torturing and mass-murdering his people (also true).
That looking at what's right in front of our eyes is better than repeating whatever rant is on the homepage of moveon.org?Quote:
OMG what the heck are you adults thinking.
This claim is patent nonsense. It was always nonsense, and it will always be nonsense. If we were going to war for oil, then a) we wouldn't have needed to go to war, all we would have needed to do was lift the sanctions, and b) we would actually have the oil! If you're going to war for oil, yet not taking the oil, something strange is going on.Quote:
It was for oil
Actually, that "we" would be the Clinton administration--look up the 1994 treaty agreement.Quote:
WE sat there and ignored North Korea.And now we wait and its too late N.Korea has nukes and now we are in peace talks with them.
And yes, it's too late. While we may still have to invade North Korea, we can't do so without the possibility of nuclear attack. Do you figure we should have waited that long with Iraq too, so the guy would at least have a sporting chance?
I will respond to this in what experience has show is the only manner in which I am allowed to respond to insults:Quote:
Redneck get out of fairy tale conservative land and wake up and look at the world around you.
THANK YOU SIR MAY I HAVE ANOTHER!!
Actually, I looked over the 9-11 Commission report. It may indeed still be there--the sucker's pretty big--but I didn't see it.Quote:
As the 9/11 Commission, as well as many subsequent commissions to follow found and reported, the information used to get into Iraq was flawed beyond belief.
Among the things they found was that Sodom and bin Laden did indeed have agreements, and indications are they they helped each other (Section 2.4, Attacks Known and Suspected,footnotes 53, 54, and 55. Also section 2.5, AL QAEDA'S RENEWAL IN AFGHANISTAN (1996-1998), footnotes 73, 74, and 75,).
(also note, at footnote #23 in section 2.3, THE RISE OF BIN LADIN AND AL QAEDA (1988-1992), that while US and Saudi Arabian money flowed to other anti-Communist groups, Bin Laden and his groups had (and were) their own support and training.)
While it's common knowledge now that our intelligence was flawed, it wasn't known to us then--nor to the other nations, or the UN, that believed the same.Quote:
The Bush Administration has essentially agreed to this by no longer refering to this information, by discrediting it themselves and by giving new reasons for the Iraqi invasion as opposed to the ones that were initially given during the State Of The Union address 3 years ago.
However, it is simply not the case that WMD was the only reason Bush gave for invading Iraq and that he had to "change his story" later on. Among the reasons named in his 2003 State of the Union Address were Houssein's flaunting of the UN agreements he made, his intention to gain WMD (including the UN estimates of what he had and the mobile weapons labs we found), more than 30,000 other munitions he's not allowed to have (such as thelong-range missiles we found), his work in hiding documents and materials from (and the monitering of) inspection officals and his order that scientists who cooperate with the inspectors and their families will be murdered, his use of torture to gain forced-confessions, and his general brutality, reckless aggression, and ties to terrorism.
I doubt oil was the motivating force behind the war. It's more likely that if an American President wants to go to war in the Middle East he would be wise to get the oil companies on his side.Quote:
Originally Posted by lordblazer
Just because someone sees the world in a vastly different light doesn't mean they live in fairy tale land. I mean, maybe if he starts posting about giant panda bears handing out candy. Besides, I'm sure The Redneck would agree that a lot of BS is going on in this country, but his criteria for BS might be a bit different from yours. Anyway, let's try to avoid what might be construed as insults.Quote:
Originally Posted by lordblazer
The Redneck, read over sections 10 and 11 of the Commission, where it goes into detail all that occurred right after 9/11. What they found was that there was no actual link between Bin Laden and Saddam, as well as no credible intelligence about WMD's, which the Bush Administration KNEW, but chose to ignore and use the information anyway.
"However, it is simply not the case that WMD was the only reason Bush gave for invading Iraq and that he had to "change his story" later on. Among the reasons named in his 2003 State of the Union Address were Houssein's flaunting of the UN agreements he made, his intention to gain WMD (including the UN estimates of what he had and the mobile weapons labs we found), more than 30,000 other munitions he's not allowed to have (such as thelong-range missiles we found), his work in hiding documents and materials from (and the monitering of) inspection officals and his order that scientists who cooperate with the inspectors and their families will be murdered, his use of torture to gain forced-confessions, and his general brutality, reckless aggression, and ties to terrorism."
If you recall, there was NO mention of "liberating" or "spreading freedom and democracy" in Iraq until late 2003 when it became evident that finding WMD's was not going to happen. Those buzz words only appeared after the initial reasons for entering Iraq fell apart and while they are noble minded intentions if followed through on, the fact of the matter is, they weren't why we initially went in there because if they were, an exit and rebuilding strategy would have been in place along with an invasion strategy campaign and that's simply not the case.
Take care all.
I've noted the evidence the commission found regarding links between Bin Laden and Sodom--what the commission found was that Sodom had no part in 9/11. However, that isn't and wasn't the administration's position (except for Wolfowitz, who so far as I remember didn't publically go against Bush's statements on the matter). The claim that Sodom had links to Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, is supported by the Commission in sections 2.4 and 2.5 of the report.Quote:
hat they found was that there was no actual link between Bin Laden and Saddam
After reading through both sections, I'm afraid I didn't find any mention of WMD, or the intelligence regarding it, or any knowledge Bush had of the intelligence (although if Bush knew it was flawed, he apparently managed to carry his charade into the intelligence networks of literally dozens of other nations). Like I said before, it may still be there--it's dry reading, and I've got a headache, and may have missed it--but I'm afraid I didn't see it.Quote:
What they found was that there was no actual link between Bin Laden and Saddam, as well as no credible intelligence about WMD's, which the Bush Administration KNEW, but chose to ignore and use the information anyway.
Likewise, I don't remember any of the war's protestors mentioning the possibility that Sodom did not have these weapons before the war--are you saying that somehow Bush knew they weren't there but no one else did?
Actually, he said in that same 2003 State of the Union Address (it seems the link I posted last post didn't work--here's one that should), that "And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation." Also "And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom." And "Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." In his statement regarding war with Iraq (what I call the "you got 48 hours before we get there, and we're bringin' an ###-kickin' with us" statement), he said "Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."Quote:
If you recall, there was NO mention of "liberating" or "spreading freedom and democracy" in Iraq until late 2003 when it became evident that finding WMD's was not going to happen.
These comments aren't very frequently reported, but Bush has never made WMD's the only reason for war in Iraq.
The UN, huh? Too many cooks in the kitchen, perhaps. It's bound to happen with 200 different points of view.
It might be easier to just look out for number one, sure, but withdrawing the United States from the UN might not be the best idea because of... well, our relations with everyone else.
"Sodom had links to Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, is supported by the Commission in sections 2.4 and 2.5 of the report."
Just to point out, what the Commission found is that Bin Laden had sent messages to Saddam, which were not responded to, which does not really show any links, unless by using that logic, that Winston Churchill was a Communist because he read messages sent by Stalin during WWII but never responded. If you read page 15 of the sections you mentioned, the Commission point out that Saddam made no replies to any of these messages. Don't misunderstand, I'm in no way supporting Saddam as he was a brutal dictator, but he was a dictator, not an Islamic Extremeist such as Bin Laden. The last thing Saddam wanted was for anyone to usurp power from him, which is why he stayed away from people like Bin Laden who were seeking domination of the world.
The Redneck, it is most important to note context with regard to that State of the Union address: Bush brought up liberation along with his claim of WMD's, not beforehand but in addition. Had he not mentioned that Saddam had these WMD's, there would have been little to no backing to go into Iraq in the first place. As nice as it is that Saddam is out of power, the ends can't justify the means in this case, unless we plan on looking like hypocrites in this world, whereas we can stand up against one evil regime but let others continue on and on, such as Saudi Arabia. Presidents have done this before, FDR, JFK, Nixon, Reagan, as in they needed to find a justification, no matter how flimsy, to back their war or lose the support of the people, but that doesn't make it okay.
Bush never mentioned "liberation" as the linchpin reason for Iraq until the WMD's had not been found and we were already in there, thus removing the need to have another reason in the first place. (Most of this came from the book by Richard Clarke, who was a working member of the Defense Department with the Bush Administration at the time).
To be honest, I've never been a fan of State of the Union addresses anyway as a source for real information since all Presidents use it as a platform to sound idealistic when little to none of what is said really does go into effect. The State of the Union is chiefly used as a place to make America think big and have big dreams, such as traveling to Mars for instance, but little of it can really be used in reality or in the ways that it is presented. Though saying the liberation and setting up of democracy in Iraq is indeed our goal right now, this begs the real question: How so? We have no exit or rebuilding strategy as far as I've seen aside from rushing an election through and trying to place Iraq into the people's hands when it is obvious that the country is still in a grave state of flux.
In my opinion, this Administration has shown little with regard to actually rebuilding or securing the entire country, from the now infamous "Mission Accomplished" sign on the aircraft carrier, to the latest news that several members of the newly elected body don't want their posts because they don't think they will have any true power in the end. Couple that with the increasingly disenchanted recruiting numbers for the army, and the odds of actually making everything work look less and less likely. As great as giving democracy may be, what is most important is to make democracy last.
Take care all.
Debated endlessly abouut wheather or not the slaughter counted as genocide. :mad: If we want the world to respect us, we need to respect them.Quote:
And what, pray tell, did the United States do in regards to Rwanda?[
That's part of the connections between the two, but I'm afraid there's more than that. Section 2.4, just before footnote 55, notes that there are indications Sodom aided Ansar al Islam, formed by Bin Laden, because the two had a common enemy in the Kurds. Moreover, the commission notes just after footnote 74 that the condition you noted (bin Laden sending messages, Sodom not responding) reversed in 1998.Quote:
ust to point out, what the Commission found is that Bin Laden had sent messages to Saddam, which were not responded to, which does not really show any links, unless by using that logic, that Winston Churchill was a Communist because he read messages sent by Stalin during WWII but never responded.
There's no dispute there--WMD's were the first reason and the main reason. what I'm saying, however, is they were never the only reason, nor did these other reasons just appear out of thin air when the WMD info fell apart.Quote:
The Redneck, it is most important to note context with regard to that State of the Union address: Bush brought up liberation along with his claim of WMD's, not beforehand but in addition.
True 'nuff. :D But when we're debating over what the president said, his most prominent speech of the year is a pretty good source.Quote:
To be honest, I've never been a fan of State of the Union addresses anyway as a source for real information since all Presidents use it as a platform to sound idealistic when little to none of what is said really does go into effect.
Nobody said that building a nation would be easy--hell, we had to put down the Whiskey Rebellion here in America just after we won our own independence. Likewise there are bound to be people who expected more power than they got--especially in a limited government. But the truth is that Iraq is going far better than the picture we get at home, and the conditions are set for it to improve.Quote:
In my opinion, this Administration has shown little with regard to actually rebuilding or securing the entire country, from the now infamous "Mission Accomplished" sign on the aircraft carrier, to the latest news that several members of the newly elected body don't want their posts because they don't think they will have any true power in the end. Couple that with the increasingly disenchanted recruiting numbers for the army, and the odds of actually making everything work look less and less likely. As great as giving democracy may be, what is most important is to make democracy last.