| Author |
Message |
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
 Sat Dec 18, 2004 7:08 pm |
|
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | United with an organization that passes money to terrorists...uh huh  . |
Exactly. Frankly, I could care less about our international relations with this corrupt organization.
| Founder wrote: | | Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | There are so many falicies and twists in this document that I got dizzy from reading it.
| Quote: | To: U.S. President George W. Bush
Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist
Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid
Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert
House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay
House Majority Whip, Roy Blunt
House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi
House Minority Whip, Steny Hoyer
UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan
H.E. Mr. Jean Ping, President, UN General Assembly
During the past several years, the threat facing the United States of America and much of the world from violent terrorist organizations has grown exponentially. While the United Nations is chartered to promote peace, its actions recently have made it an accessory to terrorist crimes.
This calls for straightforward action by the people of the United States to protect our national interest. Americans must demand our government remove the United Nations from our borders and cease serving as the major financial supporter of an organization that has veered from its original purpose. |
Notice how he says "Protecting our national interest." And what about the interests of our allies? Putting ones self before everything else is not only stupid and highly nationalistic, but doing so may insite a war because other countries don't see things the way WE see them.
We have to care about the interest of our allies but they don't have to care about our interest? Wow that works out well....for them.
Excellent point. Whatever you want to think, Link, but you know what? There is so much anti-American sentiment now that I just DON'T CARE WHAT OUR ALLIES THINK, well, hardly anyways, WHEN THIS CORRUPT ORGANIZATION IS INVOLVED. WE NEED TO GET OUT.
Twisting of facts: The UN has not veered from its original purpose. The UN is supposed to keep the peace. How is it supposed to do that when We, the US, make false accusations then march into a country, take it over and cause more harm then good?
Over the years since it's establishment, the UN has done more good with humanitarian effort and peace talks. Peace being it's purpose, not to help us start wars.
The UN has veered BADLY. They are corrupt. Kept the peace? At the cost of innocent lives at the hand of an evil dictator? I guess you don't mind that kinda killin do you.
There were no false accusations. In the early 90s Saddam admitted to the UN he had WMD. We haven't caused more harm. Funny how its NEVER the enemies fault to the Bush basahers. Yeah, its not the Islamic terrorist killing our people.
Its done a shi**y job of keeping the peace. It never kept the peace. It let murderous dictators like Castro and Saddam to rule. People are suffering and they turn a blind eye to that. Wow...peace keepers....
Exactly. But let me name another activity in which the UN failed. They didn't "keep the peace." One word, one nation: Rowanda.
| Quote: | The United Nations was originally founded according to its charter �to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security.� However, it has become apparent that leading voices in the United Nations have positioned the organization so that it is increasingly a body that sides with those who find the use of terrorism against unarmed and innocent civilians tolerable.
Instead of serving as a rallying point for free nations and free people to unite to combat terrorism, the United Nations has become a safe harbor, apologist and defender of terrorist organizations and their agents. |
Again, the UN strives for peace, not appeasement. Proper actions were taken at the time. Saddam wasn't a threat to any other country and like all humans he will die.
He was a threat! He had ties to terrorist. He told the Muslim world to rise against us. He kills his own people. Why is that so f*****g complicated for you to understand? He will die? Oh thats nice. Let him go on killing people and assisting those who kill our troops. Its ok. He'll die in a few decades. One of the most sick things I ever heard. For every quick year that goes by for you here in peace, it feels like an eternity for the poor people suffering under his rule. Because of stupid ass mentality like that, Castro is still alive.
EXACTLY, but please, watch the language.
The UN put sactions on Iraq, then began the "Oil-for-Food" program so people wouldn't STAVE TO DEATH becuase of the heavy sanctions. At the time it was a good idea.
Ever heard of the Oil-For-Food scandal? Or are you in denial and hope it isn't true? That didn't work. He stole from his people. No one got food.
I don't think he has.
People also seem to forget that it was us, the US who put Saddam in power in the first place.
We didn't put him in power to allow him to rise up against us and assist terrorists.
| Quote: | Recently it has become clear that none other than the UN General Secretary himself, Kofi Annan, has been implicated in covering up the troubling �Oil for Food� scandal, and stonewalling investigators. The so-called �independent audit� of the alleged misdeeds of the UN�s �Oil for Food� program is looking more and more like a whitewash.
Why? Evidence suggests that Mr. Annan and his son, Kojo, may themselves have been involved in wrongdoing in partnership with Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein. High-ranking officials throughout the UN are now suspected of financially benefiting from maintaining Saddam Hussein in power, despite his despotic rule and ties to worldwide terrorism and refusal to accept UN resolutions.
Saddam Hussein served as one of the greatest advocates for international terrorism, yet the United Nations is wrought with individuals who became the greatest obstacles for putting an end to his promotion of international terror. |
More slander of Kofi Annan to make him look bad.
He does that on his own.
How about our president's whitewash of Iraqi Freedom. He's changed the reason we've gone there about 3-4 times now. When something doesn't go right he picks something else, hoping people will believe. Anyone remember the original reason we went. 3 little letters WMD's. Did we find any NO. what we found were remnants from the Gulf war and Desert Storm.
No he doesn't. Don't lie. There still might be WMD. I don't believe that commision. Are we expected to believe they search every square inch of Iraq? *cough* bullsh*t *cough*
Umm.. since when has Saddam been an International Terrorist? Last I heard he was a totalitarian Dictator who was more like Stalin. In order to be an international terrorist you have to do things INTERNATIONALLY!
Oh I see. Its ok to be totalitatian Dictator but bad to be a terrorist? That makes sense....he assists terrorist. It makes him just as bad.
| Quote: | | In the aftermath of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Kofi Annan has added insult to injury by calling the military operation enforcing UN resolutions �illegal.� This is despite a series of resolutions, including Resolution 1441, which stated, �the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.� |
We went in on flimsy proof with no back up data to support it. It WAS illegal. No WMD's found. continual speculation that there are is like OJ's search for the real killer. It's not there.
Flimsy proof?  If you say so.....
They still might be there.
| Quote: | That resolution included a dissenting opinion by three nations. Those nations were France, Russia and China. Evidence has now emerged which implicates those same three nations as being the most actively involved in the UN-Iraq �Oil for Food� corruption scandal.
Money from the �Oil for Food� scheme not only went to pay the families of Palestinian terrorists, and journalists and officials in countries opposing the Iraqi action, but it looks like it also went to purchase the weapons that so called �insurgents� are now using in Iraq to kill coalition forces, Iraqi security forces, and innocent Iraqi civilians.
No longer should the United States of America serve as the host to an institution that serves as a forum for opposition to our national interests. Further, the United States should reexamine the extent of its financial support of such an agency. |
"but it looks like it also went to purchase the weapons that so called �insurgents� are now using in Iraq to kill coalition forces, Iraqi security forces, and innocent Iraqi civilians."
Speculation hardly leads to true answers. Most of the weapons used now were stockpiled during the last gulf war or supplied by terrorist factions that have been pis*ed off by the US. But this is another twist to try to get you to see their point.
So you just admitted he has weapons? I thought you said he didn't. Just because they are a decade old doesn't mean they aren't lethal.
Again, "our National interests" has been said again. Our national interests should not have to do with appeasement. We should not have to have every country bow to our wishes when we decide to flex our muscles.
Again I ask we have to bow to foreign nations but they don't have to bow to us? Wrong. Not going to happen.
I think neither side should bow to anyone.
| Quote: | | The U.S. pays a membership fee to the United Nations of $360 million per year (and billions more in payments to other UN organizations). These are payments made to an organization that is serving as an obstacle in the war against terrorism. That makes no sense, and we must take action to reduce or cancel payment of these fees. [Currently the U.S. pays approximately 22% of the UN�s general budget and 27% of peacekeeping budgets.] |
Again putting their own interests in front of the interests of the world. Great way to lose allies and gain enemies.
Well when the World has evil interest above the saftey of our fellow man than I won't mind losing those allies. They made themselves enemies when they supported a murder.
Yawn. WE STARTED THE UN!!! Teh US created the UN, the US built the UN. Now when things dont go our way we tell them to get out? It doesn't work that way in real life folks. |
You somewhat prove a point there. Starting over may not help because it might become just as corrupt as this one. Something must be done though. The other nation's leaders should be punished for helping Saddam.
BTW? I do NOT agree with that article just in case you thought I was defending it. The man who wrote it is a moron. |
Founder is right on all fronts. But it does NOT matter whether we starting the UN or not. It does NOT. If they've gone off the deep end, then we have an obligation to stop. And I don't like that article either.
| Valathous wrote: | Actually the UN has done it's job quite well. Has WWIII come yet? No. Would it have with the US going on all of it's little escapades without the UN? Most likely.
Hate to break it to you, but we ARE in WWIII. And NO they have NOT done a good job. I'll name you 2 failures. Iraq (Oil for Food, in particular) and Rowanda. Just two out of many.
The UN is meant to keep international peace, not pick world leaders.... and like Link said, the US put Saddam in power in the first place, the US trained Bin Laden during the Cold War to fight the Russians, the US trained Castro to get Batista out of power in Cuba. If anything, it's the US who's not doing its job, not the UN.
What happened in the past is a different situation from now  And how did we put Saddam in power? We gave him weapons when he was fighting our ENEMY, but put him into power? I don't think so.
Still might be WMD? You're haning on to a last hope of despiration that something may clear Bush's name for going into Iraq without a reason. First it was WMD, then you changed it to being there so you can oust Saddam, then you decided that isn't going to well, so it's off to try and stabalize a country and bring democracy to a country that obviously doesn't want the US there if they keep fighting back.
No, he is NOT "hanging on to a last hope of despiration." The UN aknowledged the threat and threatened to use force if he didn't comply. He didn't and they didn't fullfill with their promise. But there very well may still be WMDs.
Bush is having people killed everyday. Innocent Iraqis are dying to the hands of American troops everyday, you just don't hear about it much in the US, because we can't having anything make the world's greatest freedom fighter Bush look bad.
Uh, sure, whatever you want to believe
Obviously was "flimsy proof " if the army has been in there for 2 years and still hasn't found WMD and has completely abandonned that reason for being in Iraq.
Uh, there is ALWAYS the chance.
You know why Bush changed the name of "Rogue Nations" in the US to "Axis of evil" ? Because under Geneva Convention laws, the US is classified as a Rogue Nation.
Keep the UN right where it is! |
Uh, NO.
| Kyre wrote: | | But the US supported Saddam during the Cold war, didn't they? |
Put it into context. That was during the Iran-Iraq War. Iran was our great enemy. One example is, uh, the HOSTAGE SITUATION, if you remember that? Ended the DAY Reagan was inaugurated. ENEMY.
| lionhead wrote: | | Micteth-Son of Udas wrote: | | lionhead wrote: | the USA is not united, so they don't fit in the UN.
As UN we are here too remind YOU too get into the United Nations. Now show me the Nation, Shoooooow me the Nation. |
LOOK ON A WORLD MAP, you see that land that says "United States Of America"? the one north of Mexico, and south of Canada? Thats the Nation. We Are united in everyway, Just becuase certian states allow something while others dont, or where some states belive or have diffrent values the others doesnt mean were not united. When the founding fathers of the USA created this great countrie, they new everyone would have a diffrent veiw of things, and here in america, all veiws are taken into consideration and then voted apon, Everyone has a say, Thats what makes this countrie so great.
And as far as the UN thing, I SAY GET THE HELL OFF OF AMERICAN SOIL!
Let us use that space for more industrie or homes. The UN IS A DISGRACE it use to mean something, NOW ITS JUST A ICON
"The UN dosent approve of this or that blah blah blah"
WHO CARES!?
EVEN IF THE UN DOESNT APPROVE THAT COUNTRIES STILL GOING TO DO IT.........
LIKE SADAM....... im not even going to get started on that subject....
funny thing is im only 15....... |
Wow, wow, wow. keep it down man. I wasn't tlaking about the tates (well i was, but that not the point)
what i mean is that without europe you didn't even exist, and what are the thanks we get? Nothing. sure you might helped us in WW 2 but thats no excuse for all the stings you guys did wrong. I recall you guys having a huge Civil war over there just because of 1 race diffrence. Plus you fought against another race with weapons they could only dream about and then you started whining that you're own men where dying. eventually you totally annihilated the race a put them into little reserves. Pretending you where doing them any good.
Bah. Europe "starting us" is irrelivent, anyways. The French gave us the Statue of Liberty, but that means nothing now. Europe has changed, it doesn't mean that we have to "listen" to them, especially when they don't, with the exeption of Britain, support US. Do we get much thanks from, say, the French for WWII? NO. And that was MORE RECENT than when we were founded!
And lets not talk other faults: Nixon, Bush, the manhattan project, vietnam, korea and the gulf war.
So you just pipe down mister. |
Uh, sure.
| Founder wrote: | | lionhead wrote: | | Micteth-Son of Udas wrote: | | lionhead wrote: | the USA is not united, so they don't fit in the UN.
As UN we are here too remind YOU too get into the United Nations. Now show me the Nation, Shoooooow me the Nation. |
LOOK ON A WORLD MAP, you see that land that says "United States Of America"? the one north of Mexico, and south of Canada? Thats the Nation. We Are united in everyway, Just becuase certian states allow something while others dont, or where some states belive or have diffrent values the others doesnt mean were not united. When the founding fathers of the USA created this great countrie, they new everyone would have a diffrent veiw of things, and here in america, all veiws are taken into consideration and then voted apon, Everyone has a say, Thats what makes this countrie so great.
And as far as the UN thing, I SAY GET THE HELL OFF OF AMERICAN SOIL!
Let us use that space for more industrie or homes. The UN IS A DISGRACE it use to mean something, NOW ITS JUST A ICON
"The UN dosent approve of this or that blah blah blah"
WHO CARES!?
EVEN IF THE UN DOESNT APPROVE THAT COUNTRIES STILL GOING TO DO IT.........
LIKE SADAM....... im not even going to get started on that subject....
funny thing is im only 15....... |
Wow, wow, wow. keep it down man. I wasn't tlaking about the tates (well i was, but that not the point)
what i mean is that without europe you didn't even exist, and what are the thanks we get? Nothing. sure you might helped us in WW 2 but thats no excuse for all the stings you guys did wrong. I recall you guys having a huge Civil war over there just because of 1 race diffrence. Plus you fought against another race with weapons they could only dream about and then you started whining that you're own men where dying. eventually you totally annihilated the race a put them into little reserves. Pretending you where doing them any good.
And lets not talk other faults: Nixon, Bush, the manhattan project, vietnam, korea and the gulf war.
So you just pipe down mister. |
Without Europe we wouldn't exist? America isn't made up of Europeans. Its made up of many races. Europe contributed but thats it. Thanks? WTF are you talking about? The US owes no one anything. The US owes the worlds thanks if it owes anyone. Europe did not form the US. What country are you from? I hope not England. You people have more skeletons in your closet than many countries combined. How dare you say we can't make up the wrong we did. Learn about our history before you *beep* about it. We didn't have a Civil War over a difference in one race. The war was fought because states were seceding. The slavery issue was important but not the whole war. Besides, whats wrong with having a war to liberate a people? Oh I forgot you support Saddam. You like oppressing people. We didn't start a war. 9/11 happened first genius. We were attacked first. If you are refering to Iraq, I already said Saddam admitted to having WMD to the UN. So I guess their "dream" came true. We aren;t whining about our losses. Its acutally Europe who keeps *beep* about things they have no business to talk about. Bringing democracy is SO evil.
You pipe down and get off your high horse. |
Well, YES!
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | Wow, let's examine facts:
The U.N. sponsors terrorism.
Basically, yes.
The U.N. through oil for food was paying for people to be killed.
Don't call them the UN. Put Un. But yes.
Some resolutions which Iraq had been violating for years were CHAPTER VII-calling for the use of force if necessary...where was the UN on that?
Uh, EXACTLY. The Un threated to use force if Saddam didn't comply, and yet they DIDN'T.
France, Russia, and Germany didn't want to go to war because they were making money off of Saddam.
EXACTLY. SAME with the UN, China, and perhaps a few other nations.
Money made by Saddam through oil-for-food was probably used to buy weapons which are now being used by none other than insurgents...and you whine Bush is having people killed.
EXACTLY!
Saddam tortured people. He attempted genocide. He put people into cells nude, and acid dripped slowly, sparadically form the ceiling causing slow painful death. I would post a pic, but I think it is a bit inappropriate.
Oh RIGHT! I've seen FOOTAGE of the torture, and you Liberals always cry "Abu Grahiab." And don't tell me "No." EACH Lib at my school, for instance, when we discuss it, they always bring that up, and people here have too.
--------------
| Quote: | | the USA is not united, so they don't fit in the UN. |
^Think before you speak. Clearly you aren't an American.
| Quote: | Actually the UN has done it's job quite well. Has WWIII come yet? No.
Wow...that is your definition of good job...not letting the world go to war...okkkkkk.
Would it have with the US going on all of it's little escapades without the UN? Most likely.
Suddenly preventing terrorism is going on escapades...I thought the U.S.A was alowed to defend itself...or is that "frowned upon" now?
The UN is meant to keep international peace, not pick world leaders.... and like Link said, the US put Saddam in power in the first place, the US trained Bin Laden during the Cold War to fight the Russians, the US trained Castro to get Batista out of power in Cuba. If anything, it's the US who's not doing its job, not the UN.
So fighting the Soviets was not our job? I am confused...Go back to the top and read the facts so you can get it strait.
Still might be WMD? You're haning on to a last hope of despiration that something may clear Bush's name for going into Iraq without a reason. First it was WMD, then you changed it to being there so you can oust Saddam, then you decided that isn't going to well, so it's off to try and stabalize a country and bring democracy to a country that obviously doesn't want the US there if they keep fighting back.
Since when is the country fighting back? It is Saddam loyalists and Muslim extremists the entire country is not fighting back. Besides...the UN is so big on passing judgement on the US...where was this judgement when Saddam was violating the Chapter VII resolutions or when he was attempting genocide may I ask?
Bush is having people killed everyday. Innocent Iraqis are dying to the hands of American troops everyday, you just don't hear about it much in the US, because we can't having anything make the world's greatest freedom fighter Bush look bad.
Well YOU haven't heard of oil for food...of course with the rest of the world so wanting to make the US look bad I wouldn't expect your media to tell you anything about that. Besides...what do you call genocide. It's ok to kill people when you are the ruler of the country they are citizens in?
Obviously was "flimsy proof " if the army has been in there for 2 years and still hasn't found WMD and has completely abandonned that reason for being in Iraq.
You know why Bush changed the name of "Rogue Nations" in the US to "Axis of evil" ? Because under Geneva Convention laws, the US is classified as a Rogue Nation.
Or perhaps because oh I don't knoooooow they were evil. Of course...maybe you are just so intellectual you can reason genocide in your mind?
Keep the UN right where it is!
No thank you. Canadian border is a short way away...if you are so in love with this corrupt terrorist supporting organization...you take them. |
|
EXACTLY.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Kyre
Commodore
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 1263
|
| Sat Dec 18, 2004 10:15 pm |
|
So Saddam was a nice bloke back then? Well, that explains it.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Dec 18, 2004 10:38 pm |
|
| Kyre wrote: | | So Saddam was a nice bloke back then? Well, that explains it. |
It doesn't mean that he was necesarily NICE, but PRIOR to when he gassed his people, we gave him support FOR THE WAR, NOT to use any obtained resources as part of his assault against a race, etc. It's called BAD JUDGEMENT.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sat Dec 18, 2004 11:27 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | JanewayIsHott wrote: | | United with an organization that passes money to terrorists...uh huh . |
Exactly. Frankly, I could care less about our international relations with this corrupt organization. |
Tsk, everyother major nation is part of it, so it would look kinda strange if the strongest country in the world were to just break away.
And I wasn't talking about our relations with the UN, but how it would look to other countries.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Valathous
The Canadian, eh
Joined: 31 Aug 2002
Posts: 19074
Location: Centre Bell
|
| Sat Dec 18, 2004 11:34 pm |
|
Im going to just reply to one comment because it actually made me mad.
RM, this is NOT WWIII! What an insult to all of the veterans who fought in WWI and WWII!
Millions of people died in each of those wars. How many have died in this one/ maybe 2000-3000 between both sides?
Just the phrase "Going over the top?" like in World War I, where millions died trying to take over a trench, pointlessly throwing their lives away brings more deaths than the word "terrorist."
The World Wars involved many many countries and fighting for preventing a country or person from getting control of the world, not stopping a handful of terrorists or going after a person for WMD who doesnt have any. This "War on Terror" hasn't even officially been classified as a war because Bush didn't want to have to give the Geneva Convention rights to the people whom he capture. Also, consider the fact that a War is between Nations, not a nation and terrorists who are acting independant of a country.
Once again, what an insult to all those who fought and died in the World Wars. You should honestly feel ashamed for that comment.
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:00 am |
|
The death count may not be that of the wars acknowledged as World Wars, but in a very real sense the war on terrorists is a worldwide affair. To some extent, there are terrorists in every nation, and whether or not it is a united cause those nations are fighting against them, each in its own way. Not all terrorists are Islamic fundamentalists with AK-47s. There are many kinds of terrorists in many different places. Whether or not you want to call it a world war is your choice, but RM's point is very well taken.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:07 am |
|
I think I am going to have to go with Dan on this one. I had never really thought about it before in that manner, but after reading his post, I can see his point. Anyhow, considering half of the world doesn't even give a damn about terrorism anyways I don't really see how we could call it a world war. I think it is more like the "The United States' Worldwide Fight Against Terrorism".
So yeah, I think Dan is right about this.
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:20 am |
|
As a sidenote, I want to add that I don't believe the U.N. is an accomplice to terrorist action, nor do I believe that the United States should leave the United Nations. I also don't buy any argument that the whole world isn't in this together, all officiality aside.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:31 am |
|
As for the UN sponsoring terrorism it is simple connect the dots.
-----
1. United Nations gave Saddam illegal money through oil-for-food.
2. Saddam used some of this money to pay families of Palestinian suidide bombers.
2b. Saddam used some of this money to buy weapons, which are now being used by terrorist insurgents to fight against US and Iraqi forces in Iraq.
------
There, it is that easy.
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:47 am |
|
The U.N. gives foreign aid to help countries. If they use the meney to fund terrorists it isn't the U.N.'s fault. The U.S. gives out plenty of money in foreign aid each year too. I'll bet that if you tracked where all that cash ended up you'd find more than just a few dollars in the pockets of terrorists.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:56 am |
|
France, Germany, and Russia were involved in illegal trafficing of money directly to Saddam, which everyone knows is not a lovely character. It is not some thing where they just were doing the wrong thing at the wrong time. Plus, may I remind you that these three countries were also making money in return. If we can recall, why yes, these were also the three that didn't want war at all costs. Hmmmmmmmm, sounds like alot of coincidences going on there.
Look, I don't want to get rid of the U.N. or banish them from the country, I realize that they do some good things, or at least attempt to do good, which in itself is honorable. However, if I just posted another oil-for-food headline, there would be one post by RM, and then it would fall to the bottom of the page never to be seen again. When I post something like this people pay attention and get involved. All I really want is for people to just recognize the fact that while the UN, may be good, there are also alot of bad things that need to be fixed, and maybe we need a little reform within the UN. That is all I wanted, just for people to think since this gets minimal media coverage.
|
|
|
Valathous
The Canadian, eh
Joined: 31 Aug 2002
Posts: 19074
Location: Centre Bell
|
| Sun Dec 19, 2004 1:30 am |
|
There you go. do not get rid of the UN and do not force it out of the US and make the US leave it. Reform it somewhat. Get rid of some of th upper officials who were part of th efood for oil. Replace them with more trustworthy people.... Like Canadians. 
The UN does a lot of good in the world, and without it there would be more chaos. Do not get rid of it, just fix it up a bit.
|
|
|
lionhead
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4020
Location: The Delta Quadrant (or not...)
|
| Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:50 am |
|
| Founder wrote: |
Without Europe we wouldn't exist? America isn't made up of Europeans. Its made up of many races. Europe contributed but thats it. Thanks? WTF are you talking about? The US owes no one anything. The US owes the worlds thanks if it owes anyone. Europe did not form the US. What country are you from? I hope not England. You people have more skeletons in your closet than many countries combined. How dare you say we can't make up the wrong we did. Learn about our history before you *beep* about it. We didn't have a Civil War over a difference in one race. The war was fought because states were seceding. The slavery issue was important but not the whole war. Besides, whats wrong with having a war to liberate a people? Oh I forgot you support Saddam. You like oppressing people. We didn't start a war. 9/11 happened first genius. We were attacked first. If you are refering to Iraq, I already said Saddam admitted to having WMD to the UN. So I guess their "dream" came true. We aren;t whining about our losses. Its acutally Europe who keeps *beep* about things they have no business to talk about. Bringing democracy is SO evil.
You pipe down and get off your high horse. |
NO, i wasn't talking about Iraq. you assume i did. But if you have an answer too everthing would you care too explain Vietnam too me?
Just because your country SAYS 'United' states it doesn't mean that you are, you all have diffirent laws per state, a diffirent governor. I think that blows.
No, i'm not english, i'm dutch and damn proud of it. Sure, we did some things back in the old days but at least i'm not American.
and europe only 'Contributed'? We where all that! Who else was there in those days? Sure, there are African Americans there too but they where brought there by the Europeans (mostly by the dutch.)
-------signature-------
Never explain comedy or satire or the ironic comment. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, never will. -Michael Moore
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Sun Dec 19, 2004 8:45 am |
|
Can I please remind people to think before they post. Will other people find the post offensive or is it likely to start a fight? If so then don't post it, or change it so that its not going to cause trouble.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Dec 19, 2004 11:30 am |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | JanewayIsHott wrote: | | United with an organization that passes money to terrorists...uh huh . |
Exactly. Frankly, I could care less about our international relations with this corrupt organization. |
Tsk, everyother major nation is part of it, so it would look kinda strange if the strongest country in the world were to just break away.
And I wasn't talking about our relations with the UN, but how it would look to other countries. |
I know, but you were talking about if we pulled out of the UN, that's what I was talking about.
| Valathous wrote: | Im going to just reply to one comment because it actually made me mad.
RM, this is NOT WWIII! What an insult to all of the veterans who fought in WWI and WWII!
Millions of people died in each of those wars. How many have died in this one/ maybe 2000-3000 between both sides?
Just the phrase "Going over the top?" like in World War I, where millions died trying to take over a trench, pointlessly throwing their lives away brings more deaths than the word "terrorist."
The World Wars involved many many countries and fighting for preventing a country or person from getting control of the world, not stopping a handful of terrorists or going after a person for WMD who doesnt have any. This "War on Terror" hasn't even officially been classified as a war because Bush didn't want to have to give the Geneva Convention rights to the people whom he capture. Also, consider the fact that a War is between Nations, not a nation and terrorists who are acting independant of a country.
Once again, what an insult to all those who fought and died in the World Wars. You should honestly feel ashamed for that comment. |
My gosh! It is NOT an insult, and it IS a World War. Zeke is right in his explanation of what I mean: It involves the majority of the world now. It IS a World War. It doesn't have to be ALL OUT WAR between pretty much every country. There are more ways for a WW.
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | The death count may not be that of the wars acknowledged as World Wars, but in a very real sense the war on terrorists is a worldwide affair. To some extent, there are terrorists in every nation, and whether or not it is a united cause those nations are fighting against them, each in its own way. Not all terrorists are Islamic fundamentalists with AK-47s. There are many kinds of terrorists in many different places. Whether or not you want to call it a world war is your choice, but RM's point is very well taken. |
Thank you. That is what I mean.
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | I think I am going to have to go with Dan on this one. I had never really thought about it before in that manner, but after reading his post, I can see his point. Anyhow, considering half of the world doesn't even give a damn about terrorism anyways I don't really see how we could call it a world war. I think it is more like the "The United States' Worldwide Fight Against Terrorism".
So yeah, I think Dan is right about this. |
Um, I'll name, hmmm, ah, just 3 more countries: Spain, Russia, and Great Britain. Technically, everyone fighting terrorists or in the War on Terror, which includes the Iraq War, is fighting in this WW. Open your definition of a world war.
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | As for the UN sponsoring terrorism it is simple connect the dots.
-----
1. United Nations gave Saddam illegal money through oil-for-food.
2. Saddam used some of this money to pay families of Palestinian suidide bombers.
2b. Saddam used some of this money to buy weapons, which are now being used by terrorist insurgents to fight against US and Iraqi forces in Iraq.
------
There, it is that easy. |
EXACTLY. Superb point.
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | The U.N. gives foreign aid to help countries. If they use the meney to fund terrorists it isn't the U.N.'s fault. The U.S. gives out plenty of money in foreign aid each year too. I'll bet that if you tracked where all that cash ended up you'd find more than just a few dollars in the pockets of terrorists. |
Uh, sure...The UN is a CORRUPT organization. I'll name 2 problems, again. Iraq (Oil for Food) and Rowanda. Oh, and the Sudan. No success there, no good job. They KNEW where the $21 Billion of Saddam was going, and yet did nothing.
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | France, Germany, and Russia were involved in illegal trafficing of money directly to Saddam, which everyone knows is not a lovely character. It is not some thing where they just were doing the wrong thing at the wrong time. Plus, may I remind you that these three countries were also making money in return. If we can recall, why yes, these were also the three that didn't want war at all costs. Hmmmmmmmm, sounds like alot of coincidences going on there.
Look, I don't want to get rid of the U.N. or banish them from the country, I realize that they do some good things, or at least attempt to do good, which in itself is honorable. However, if I just posted another oil-for-food headline, there would be one post by RM, and then it would fall to the bottom of the page never to be seen again. When I post something like this people pay attention and get involved. All I really want is for people to just recognize the fact that while the UN, may be good, there are also alot of bad things that need to be fixed, and maybe we need a little reform within the UN. That is all I wanted, just for people to think since this gets minimal media coverage. |
I don't think reform would work.
| Valathous wrote: | There you go. do not get rid of the UN and do not force it out of the US and make the US leave it. Reform it somewhat. Get rid of some of th upper officials who were part of th efood for oil. Replace them with more trustworthy people.... Like Canadians.
The UN does a lot of good in the world, and without it there would be more chaos. Do not get rid of it, just fix it up a bit. |
This corrupt of an organization CANNOT be reformed, and I don't want to play any part in the Un ANYMORE!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:55 pm |
|
| lionhead wrote: | | Founder wrote: |
Without Europe we wouldn't exist? America isn't made up of Europeans. Its made up of many races. Europe contributed but thats it. Thanks? WTF are you talking about? The US owes no one anything. The US owes the worlds thanks if it owes anyone. Europe did not form the US. What country are you from? I hope not England. You people have more skeletons in your closet than many countries combined. How dare you say we can't make up the wrong we did. Learn about our history before you *beep* about it. We didn't have a Civil War over a difference in one race. The war was fought because states were seceding. The slavery issue was important but not the whole war. Besides, whats wrong with having a war to liberate a people? Oh I forgot you support Saddam. You like oppressing people. We didn't start a war. 9/11 happened first genius. We were attacked first. If you are refering to Iraq, I already said Saddam admitted to having WMD to the UN. So I guess their "dream" came true. We aren;t whining about our losses. Its acutally Europe who keeps *beep* about things they have no business to talk about. Bringing democracy is SO evil.
You pipe down and get off your high horse. |
NO, i wasn't talking about Iraq. you assume i did. But if you have an answer too everthing would you care too explain Vietnam too me?
Vietnam? We were trying to stop the spread of communism. We have the right to stop anything that threatens America. I know alot of foreigners are going to be like "Thats why we don't like America! Because if we do something they don't like, then they attack us."
Thats not the case. Its not about what we don't like, but what will hurt us.
Just because your country SAYS 'United' states it doesn't mean that you are, you all have diffirent laws per state, a diffirent governor. I think that blows.
Yes we are united. We may have different laws per each state but that doesn't mean we are divided. We have fundemental laws the entire country follows. A different governor? What does that matter? How does that divide us? We have a leader of the entire nation, this person is called a President. I don't care if you think that blows. How tolerant of you.....
No, i'm not english, i'm dutch and damn proud of it. Sure, we did some things back in the old days but at least i'm not American.
Thats cool that your Dutch and proud. I have no problem with that. Every country did something in their past that was bad. Everyone. At least your not American? Wow....what an ignorant thing to say. Be proud but don't dump on what we are ok?
and europe only 'Contributed'? We where all that! Who else was there in those days? Sure, there are African Americans there too but they where brought there by the Europeans (mostly by the dutch.) |
Who else was there? The World. African Americans? Your proud they came from you through slavery? Ok....
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:57 pm |
|
All I can say is: Right on, Founder!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
lionhead
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4020
Location: The Delta Quadrant (or not...)
|
| Sun Dec 19, 2004 1:04 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: |
Who else was there? The World. African Americans? Your proud they came from you through slavery? Ok.... |
and what was the World at that time? China? Ha, they where only a couple of farmers without anything. India? They werhe even less, i don't even think they had any boats. Then we have Mexico, don't know the story about them, sure they went into america and perhaps made th cities of los angeles and san Fransisco and stuff but they didn't really help.
no, the world at that time WAS europe. England, Spain, France and the Netherlands where the ones that crossed the big seas, colonized America, went into trading with China, discovered Australia, Colonized Indonesia and South africa. Nobody else. Its just that there where so many of them.
But i'm not proud of our slavery in those days, i'm just proud of our fleets (the best).
-------signature-------
Never explain comedy or satire or the ironic comment. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, never will. -Michael Moore
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Dec 19, 2004 1:15 pm |
|
| lionhead wrote: | | Founder wrote: |
Who else was there? The World. African Americans? Your proud they came from you through slavery? Ok.... |
and what was the World at that time? China? Ha, they where only a couple of farmers without anything. India? They werhe even less, i don't even think they had any boats. Then we have Mexico, don't know the story about them, sure they went into america and perhaps made th cities of los angeles and san Fransisco and stuff but they didn't really help.
no, the world at that time WAS europe. England, Spain, France and the Netherlands where the ones that crossed the big seas, colonized America, went into trading with China, discovered Australia, Colonized Indonesia and South africa. Nobody else. Its just that there where so many of them.
But i'm not proud of our slavery in those days, i'm just proud of our fleets (the best). |
Uh, you should study some history
The word was NOT Europe. China and India were BOTH bustling Empires, for instance, if you STUDY HISTORY. We're studying China and India now.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Sun Dec 19, 2004 1:18 pm |
|
Agreed with Val and JIH. The U.N. needs to be reformed to help root out corruption.
|
|
|
lionhead
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4020
Location: The Delta Quadrant (or not...)
|
| Sun Dec 19, 2004 1:20 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: |
Uh, you should study some history
The word was NOT Europe. China and India were BOTH bustling Empires, for instance, if you STUDY HISTORY. We're studying China and India now. |
i like history, it gets confusing though, all those things happened for more thn 3000 years. at one point America does tihng that shock the world, then its germany, then its Japan.
I thought that China wasn't really a very important country for america in those days.... Please, tell me a story
-------signature-------
Never explain comedy or satire or the ironic comment. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, never will. -Michael Moore
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Dec 19, 2004 1:21 pm |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | Agreed with Val and JIH. The U.N. needs to be reformed to help root out corruption. |
There is no way that it can be reformed enough. NO WAY. We need to start over, if anything. Pull the US out of the Un and the Un out of the US!
And lionhead, that really is off topic, but to induldge you: They weren't a HUGE empire, but they were rising and powerful, particularly in their regions. We need to get back on topic, though
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
lionhead
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4020
Location: The Delta Quadrant (or not...)
|
| Sun Dec 19, 2004 1:30 pm |
|
Yes, onem ore thing.
Don't you think its strange? That in history of the world most countries expanded their territory around their own region except for countries in europe? we tend too totally agree or totally not agre. sometimes a country thinks its time and expands its territory in europe, but then they loose the war and every country is given back their land.
I think we Dutch at one point thought "well, the belgians, germans and brittish are too strong, lets bug the Africans, aborigionals and indians." Adn the rest of europe followed
It would have all been for the best that Napoleon or Julius Ceasar would have just made it and europe would have been 1 country now insead of around 25. saves a lot of lives later on.
-------signature-------
Never explain comedy or satire or the ironic comment. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, never will. -Michael Moore
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Sun Dec 19, 2004 1:41 pm |
|
I advocate a world government, but it needs to be a democracy and there need to be regions, like the United States. That's also why I'm unwilling to let the U.N. go. It's the strongest thread holding us all together that we have.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Sun Dec 19, 2004 1:48 pm |
|
It's better to fight corruption from inside the system. Trying to bring down the entire system promotes anarchy and is ultimately counterproductive to your goals. Because after you get rid of the U.N., who's going to form the next world organization? Obviously the same corrupt people will still be in power. The U.N. needs reform, yes, but this is because the nations who make up the U.N. are working at cross-purposes so often.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
