Author Topic: Why the US should tell the UN to get stuffed (Read 1664 times)

Arfann · « **Reply #30 on:** February 03, 2003, 01:51:44 PM »

Soooo.. . . the French claim we are being arrogant and the Germans say we are too militaristic. Anyone besides me see the irony in this???

straffo · « **Reply #31 on:** February 03, 2003, 01:57:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arfann
Soooo.. . . the French claim we are being arrogant and the Germans say we are too militaristic. Anyone besides me see the irony in this???

frankly .... no

ever used a mirror ?

Habu · « **Reply #32 on:** February 03, 2003, 01:57:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 10Bears
Sorry Euros, my countrymen suffer from AIG..

Arrogance Ignorance and Greed deadly combination that

Arrogance = We don’t need no stinkin’ international law.. The law is whatever we say it is cuz we got the biggest and the baddest army in history. Whadda ya gonna do bout it!?

Ignorance = See Habu’s and Rude’s post above... Keep in mind only 17% of Americans polled knew none of the hijackers were Iraqis.

Greed = Two dogs that share the same dogfood bowl, the bigger dog will eat all the dogfood even though it will throw up just to deny the smaller dog any food.

Habu, I wonder if the good people of South Korea would agree with you.

What international law is the US breaking? Please enlighten us.

Ignorance. I am pointing out some facts that most people are not aware of and Rude asked some questions in his post. Do you even know what Ignorance means?

Greed. Ahhh yes. If the US is going to Iraq it is all about the oil. Right? Sorry that argument only carries weight in third world muslim countries.

I have relatives who fought in Korea to prevent the communists from taking over. I am sure the US spends more in Korea in a year to protect it than France spends in a year in foriegn aid.

straffo · « **Reply #33 on:** February 03, 2003, 01:59:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Habu
Countries that refused to stand up and support the fight deserve to be ignored in the aftermath. It is not only cowardly but immoral as well. And if they are unwilling to join the fight they should at least have the moral courage to not oppose it for reasons of domestic political gain.

Kuweit was a good example of aftermatch

Habu have you ever figured why "Roquefort" is so costly in USA ?

Habu · « **Reply #34 on:** February 03, 2003, 02:06:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
Kuweit was a good example of aftermatch

Habu have you ever figured why "Roquefort" is so costly in USA ?

Sorry I do not understand your point. Do you think the people of Kuwait would have been better off being ruled by Saddam?

Did the US go in after the war and rape Iraq of all its oil?

Roquefort is not expensive in the US.

Try to buy US steaks or dairy products in France.

maxtor · « **Reply #35 on:** February 03, 2003, 02:17:05 PM »

Why would you expect the French to do anything else? France stands to make quite a bit of money from Iraq, so their reluctance is rather convenient. France has a long history (they have even supplied nuclear technology and materials to Iraq in the past.)

-dead- · « **Reply #36 on:** February 03, 2003, 02:48:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Habu
The US is the greatest democracy in the world.

Start again. Think carefully: The greatest democracy in the world? I think not. Some place with proportional representation, a few more parties actually getting representation, and (here's a wild idea) a directly elected president would be much better qualified. There should be lots of public referrendums too. Maybe Switzerland?
Here's your choice for "greatest democracy in the world" in action:
In first place with 47.9% of the vote, GW Bush
In second place with the larger 48.4% of the vote, Al Gore.
Verry democratic.

Not that the US hasn't got a lot going for it, in the fields of the constitution and citizen's rights (mind you, only 40 years ago it had a form of apartheid going on in some states). All things considered, it's nowhere near "greatest democracy" status.

Habu · « **Reply #37 on:** February 03, 2003, 02:56:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by -dead-
Start again. Think carefully: The greatest democracy in the world? I think not. Some place with proportional representation, a few more parties actually getting representation, and (here's a wild idea) a directly elected president would be much better qualified. There should be lots of public referrendums too. Maybe Switzerland?
Here's your choice for "greatest democracy in the world" in action:
In first place with 47.9% of the vote, GW Bush
In second place with the larger 48.4% of the vote, Al Gore.
Verry democratic.
Not that the US hasn't got a lot going for it, in the fields of the constitution and citizen's rights (mind you, only 40 years ago it had a form of apartheid going on in some states). All things considered, it's nowhere near "greatest democracy" status.

Sorry proportional represantation does not work, it leads to fractured weak governments like in Isreal.

In a party system it is possible to win the general election but come behind in the popular vote. It is not conspiracy, it is just the nature of demographics.

The last election was close but GWB won. And he won the recounts.

If it is not the greatest democracy then tell me what is? Sorry Switzerland has done little to stand up for freedom and democracy in the internation arena in the past 100 years. That is not their fault, they are just not big enough nor powerful enough to do so.

The US is a super power and it wields its power carefully. It is not afraid to fight when it sees the need to. Imagine the world without the US.

-dead- · « **Reply #38 on:** February 03, 2003, 04:12:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Habu
Sorry proportional represantation does not work, it leads to fractured weak governments like in Isreal.

Or Australia, Denmark, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden... etc etc. Lots of weak fractured governments around the world, eh? One price you have to pay for actual democracy is that people have several different opinions. If you're really interested in having a strong government, try communism or fascism - democracy is not for you.

Quote

In a party system it is possible to win the general election but come behind in the popular vote. It is not conspiracy, it is just the nature of demographics. The last election was close but GWB won. And he won the recounts.

Did I say anything about conspiracies or recounts? No. It comes down to bad modelling - the electoral college badly modelled the opinion of the American people. Or to do away with all the semantics: more people voted for the loser than the winner. The system is not representative of the majority opinion - in short it is undemocratic. No conspiracy, no recount nonsense required. Saying it's "just the nature of demographics" does not magically make it the fact that it is a unrepresentative system disappear. Does GWB rule demographically? No. He governs the whole of the US.
A parable to make it easy for you: reality = public opinion, the flight model = the electoral system, the sim = government. You say "This is the best flight model in the world" I say "but the flight model doesn't work because in reality, the Mustang should go at 425 mph at 20k, but in the sim it only goes 300 mph." Your reply is "The flight model is wrong, but only because that's how the flight model works."

Quote

If it is not the greatest democracy then tell me what is? Sorry Switzerland has done little to stand up for freedom and democracy in the internation arena in the past 100 years. That is not their fault, they are just not big enough nor powerful enough to do so.
The US is a super power and it wields its power carefully. It is not afraid to fight when it sees the need to.

Ahh I see the crux of your argument now - you mean the US is a democracy with the largest, most active military. The country with the biggest stick. To my mind these qualifications seem less about being "the greatest democracy" and rather more to do with being "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today", as Dr King put it. I took "greatest democracy in the world" as meaning the country with the form of government which best represents the wishes of all it's people. So the fact that Switzerland has "done little to stand up for freedom and democracy in the international arena in the past 100 years" is utterly irrelevant in determining how democratic it is - only the extent to which the Swiss government did what the Swiss people wanted it to do is relevant.

Dowding · « **Reply #39 on:** February 03, 2003, 04:34:31 PM »

Quote

Should a people ignore tyranny and evil just because it will not affect them personally?

You talk like Iraq is virgin territory as far as Western foreign policy goes. We supported him, we armed him, we let him repress his people and murder his opponents. We did this for decades and suddenly NOW we complain of human rights violations? Come on, I know you don't believe that crap.

Quote

Would it have been right for other countries to ignore the death camps in WW2 because it was not their citizens being exterminated?

The extermination of the Jews was of little concern to the Allies at the time. We were allied with Stalin, for god's sake, the most able mass murderer the world has ever seen. All that mattered was the defeat Hitler - the persecution of the Jews did not drive the Allies to fight.

Quote

Countries that refused to stand up and support the fight deserve to be ignored in the aftermath. It is not only cowardly but immoral as well. And if they are unwilling to join the fight they should at least have the moral courage to not oppose it for reasons of domestic political gain.

Again you make allusions to WW2. This is not WW2. To compare it with that conflict is laughable at best, disrespectful to those that gave their lives at worst. Within 6 years of coming to absolute power, Hitler had entered into a war bent on global domination. Saddam has had 30 years. The policy of containment appears to be working.

I'm against the war until more evidence is given - I'll be very interested in what Powell has to say in his address to the UN. He might convince me, he might not.

Arfann · « **Reply #40 on:** February 03, 2003, 04:48:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
frankly .... no

ever used a mirror ?

I rest my case.

straffo · « **Reply #41 on:** February 03, 2003, 05:08:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Habu
Sorry I do not understand your point. Do you think the people of Kuwait would have been better off being ruled by Saddam?

Did the US go in after the war and rape Iraq of all its oil?

Roquefort is not expensive in the US.

Try to buy US steaks or dairy products in France.

My point is : it was pretty hard to sell anything in koweit after the war ... especially when non-american ... even with better and cheapest product ... it was hard to face "free market advocate" American saying 'to bad you lose that market again" when they were just giving abnormal quantity of $$$ dope and girls to some kuweity "muslim".
Yes it's hard to swallow and about 10 year after it's still hard for me.

next question:
Why didn't the US go after Iraq after the war ?
It's "ENDIGUEMENT" strategie at work ... it worked in Yurop so the USA used the very same technic (Iran is near Iraq you know).

Last time I checked Roquefort was pretty expensive just because of USA protectionism ... perhaps it changed

Some product autorized in USA for meat production are illegal in France any farmer caught with such proctect can be sentenced to jail.
Why should we modify our law just to authorize some product which have not been proven to be safe for the health of the customer you can do whatever you want to American customer but not ours.

Btw I tasted a nice Californian wine last W-E and it was good even coming from a "start rant" : fediddleed fachist war addict oversea country (*)

(*) take-it easy it's a joke

Bodhi · « **Reply #42 on:** February 03, 2003, 07:33:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
...Why should have we authorized over fly our soil ?

Only to please the US ?

Sorry but I don't expect my governement to rick life of some citizen only to please another country .
Even a friendly one can french Air Force operate freely on US soil ?

Answer (obvious) : NO

It's called sovereignty you asked we answered : NO

Straffo, get your facts straight, the French had up until two months ago a squadron of fighters training out of Tampa's MacDill AFB. Don't see to many training units of ours based in France. One other thing, I lived for 6 months in France in the late 80's while I played hockey. I was impressed by the beauty and history of the country. But as for the people, I was most unimpressed with the arrogance and blind eyed views of most of the population with the exception of those living in Normandy and a few Parisians. There I found some of the most wonderful people, (who mind you did not have too) were most grateful to visit hospitality onto me as an American whose own relatives died liberating your country. Ohh, and oui je parles francais, mes il y a un long temps quand je utilises sas, and je me comprehend il est mauvais maeintenant.

I think it's best that France be forever thankful to the British and US for remaining an independant country, but thats just an opinion.

Habu · « **Reply #43 on:** February 03, 2003, 07:56:21 PM »

My wifes uncle died in WW2. He was a tail gunner in a Wellington. He is buried in England but died on the way to a mission over France.

When I was in France I went to the tourist office in Paris, the one right on the Champs de Leaize (pardon my spelling but I really don't care if I get it right)

I asked them if they had a map to the Vimy Memorial and for directions.

They had no idea what I was talking about.

But that is a different topic altogether.

-tronski- · « **Reply #44 on:** February 03, 2003, 10:29:32 PM »

uh huh

Tronsky