Author Topic: I think it is time for the USA (Read 1191 times)

straffo · « **Reply #15 on:** February 06, 2003, 03:13:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raubvogel
Change that to :

Remember: the UN has no power unto itself; it has to get the cooperation of the UNITED STATES to supply it troops, money, food/medical aid, ect.

I can't the thread about arrogance ... your post should fit nicely.

Raubvogel · « **Reply #16 on:** February 06, 2003, 04:01:21 PM »

Arrogance? Don't think so, I really don't give a toejam. Just speaking the truth. Without the United States, the United Nations would be even more worthless.

straffo · « **Reply #17 on:** February 06, 2003, 04:21:38 PM »

We obviouly don't have the same definition :

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)

Arrogance \Ar"ro*gance\, n. [F., fr. L. arrogantia, fr. arrogans. See {Arrogant}.] The act or habit of arrogating, or making undue claims in an overbearing manner; that species of pride which consists in exorbitant claims of rank, dignity, estimation, or power, or which exalts the worth or importance of the person to an undue degree; proud contempt of others; lordliness; haughtiness; self-assumption; presumption.

I hate not you for her proud arrogance. --Shak.

Syn: Haughtiness; hauteur; assumption; lordliness; presumption; pride; disdain; insolence; conceit; conceitedness. See {Haughtiness}.

From WordNet (r) 1.7 (wn)

arrogance n : overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors [syn: {haughtiness}, {highhandedness}, {lordliness}]

Krusher · « **Reply #18 on:** February 08, 2003, 11:40:43 PM »

A quote from the European Commission President Romano Prodi

"Once Europe has a common voice, it will be the only one that has to be listened to in the world," he said last week.

It looks pretty clear that the EU should only have one vote or that the USA should have 50.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #19 on:** February 09, 2003, 12:05:43 AM »

People might hear the euro whining - but what are euro rutabagas gonna do when they dont listen...

Russian · « **Reply #20 on:** February 09, 2003, 12:12:52 AM »

F#CK UN!!! [short and simple]

straffo · « **Reply #21 on:** February 09, 2003, 04:00:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusher
A quote from the European Commission President Romano Prodi

"Once Europe has a common voice, it will be the only one that has to be listened to in the world," he said last week.

It looks pretty clear that the EU should only have one vote or that the USA should have 50.

Y think that you misinterpreted his sentence IMO what he wanted to say was : When we will united we will rule you.

Cabby44 · « **Reply #22 on:** February 09, 2003, 05:41:07 AM »

Quote:

"Y think that you misinterpreted his sentence IMO what he wanted to say was : When we will united we will rule you."

ROFL!!! You and whose army?? Armies cost money. Europe would rather spend money on Socialist welfare not defense, and would rather leave the unpleasant proletarian task of policing a murderous world to the peasants in the USA.

Europe ain't gonna "rule" anybody. "United" Europe?? Fat chance..........

Cabby

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #23 on:** February 09, 2003, 05:52:57 AM »

you realize every post you make cabby has the exact opposite effect you intend ? no you wouldent i guess.

CptTrips · « **Reply #24 on:** February 09, 2003, 08:37:59 AM »

Why withdraw? We'll simply destroy it from within. We hold a veto too. If the french obstructionism prevents the UN from being relavent when its really needed, then I suggest we show them what obstructionism REALLY is. We veto everything from now on. Everything. No, I mean e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g. From the smallest "send food to batswanna" to the most momentous "send peace keeping troops to hugahunkia". Veto. Veto. Veto. Wait....maybe....nevermind; VETO! Paralyze it. Shackle it. Break its back. 5 or ten years of that and those flea infested foriegn ambassedors won't even bother showing up anymore. No override possible for our veto. We won't even let the most trivial vote pass. Shut the squeak down flat. And laugh about it to their faces the whole time.

That would be OHHHHHH so much more satisfying than merely quiting.

Wab

LLv34 Jarsci · « **Reply #25 on:** February 09, 2003, 03:29:25 PM »

Just some thoughs, all in disarray.. Im tired..

Seriously , even USA is not in position to make all rules of the game. Diplomacy and treaties are a nice word for :" I´ll bend over now if I can bang u later", and your president has done some serious treaty cancellations during his career (Kioto treaty , ABM) so there may be the basic reason to be anti-war. Just to show that we can decide something too.

Also European countries have seen war. Not in near future, but a few decades ago. The US mainland has seen fighting about 140 years ago. You may get a different point of view when lots of your civs get killed. The US of A loses mostly troops, which is also bad. So from there also can come that anti-war thinking for Europeans.

You say here that you should F**k the UN.. well do that. That just shows that you don´t even want to give way to other options. My way or the highway... Well separatism has been tried 60 years ago, didn´t work out too well.

IMHO , US should concentrate more on NK than on Irak.. Which one has publicly said to be ready to launch a pre-emptive strike?

Irak has been banged to the number 2 hole for over 10 yrs, theres nothing anymore.. even lubricant, oil , is getting short on supply..

Vulcan · « **Reply #26 on:** February 09, 2003, 03:38:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raubvogel
Arrogance? Don't think so, I really don't give a toejam. Just speaking the truth. Without the United States, the United Nations would be even more worthless.

Yeah it'd be World Peace by Committee...

Heres an idea. Make those that broker peace deals financially responsible. If France wants no war with Iraq, make them sign a CONTRACT that if Iraq develops illegal weapons then France has to pay for : future weapons inspections; any conflict required to bring Iraq back into line (including arms buildup like the US has done recently to bully Iraq into complying); any damages incurred by Iraq (ie bombing Kuwait); and be legally responsible for Iraq's actions.

koala · « **Reply #27 on:** February 09, 2003, 03:41:02 PM »

Quote

Diplomacy and treaties are a nice word for :" I´ll bend over now if I can bang u later", and your president has done some serious treaty cancellations during his career (Kioto treaty , ABM) so there may be the basic reason to be anti-war. Just to show that we can decide something too

We never ratified Kyoto, so we therefore didn't break it.

Duh.

funkedup · « **Reply #28 on:** February 09, 2003, 03:43:02 PM »

Quote

your president has done some serious treaty cancellations during his career (Kioto treaty , ABM)

Kyoto was never ratified.

The ABM treated allowed either country to withdraw with 6 months notice.

Hangtime · « **Reply #29 on:** February 09, 2003, 03:49:04 PM »

The UN should be disbanded, the charter voided.

If the UN cannot see it's way clear to remove a mass murderer's regime like Saddams then there is no hope for the organization in it's current form.