Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sabre on December 13, 2004, 01:56:55 PM
-
Further proof that the U.N. is a lost cause?
http://www.nationalreview.com/bayefsky/bayefsky200412130835.asp
-
peace is never a lost cause...and like anything, its only as usefull and strong as its members make it...
-
Sic Vis Pacem, Parabellum.
And this is where the UN fails.
-
Finally a thread that puts down the U.N. :rofl
-
— Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting professor at Touro and Metropolitan Colleges in New York..
Who wants to take bets on whether she's invited back? :)
-
Newsflash!
Everyone hates the Jews!
Film at 11
Originally posted by Sabre
Further proof that the U.N. is a lost cause?
An editorial in right-wing rag like the National Review constitutes proof of nothing.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
peace is never a lost cause...and like anything, its only as usefull and strong as its members make it...
But peace at any price is.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
But peace at any price is.
Which really isn't applicable to Iraq.
-
Who mentioned Iraq?
-
Always funny to see Americans bashing UN after all those vetoes you have made in SC... And then you b1tch UN doesn't work?
What does it tell about you?
-
Of the 248 vetoes recorded by the five permanent Security Council members since the inception of the United Nations, the United States, as of 2001, has cast 73. (29%... as there are five members with veto, 20% would be a completely even distribution. There were no US vetos before 1970) 38 of those were to sheild Israel from UN-SC "action".
On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted, with a 2/3 majority, a plan to partition western Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. The plan was put forth by a committee consisting of representatvies of Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, and Uruguay.
So does that mean that the US has, by way of those 38 vetoes, protected the integrity of a UN-GA resolution?
-
Holden, I want you to read each and every resolution passed against Israel.
Not only are 99% of them non action resolutions, but some of them show such Anti-semitism that it's disgusting.
-
What does it tell about you?
That we're better off without the UN.
-
He Laser...Note the quotes around "action" in my previous post.
When the UNSC last year demanded Israel stop threatening to remove Palestinian Arafat President Yasser Arafat, the US vetoed it. Nicholas Negroponte, US ambassador to the UN, reiterated US’s decade old stand that they were not prepared to condemn Israel’s activities unless the resolution took a firm stand against Palestinian terrorist groups too.
Seems the last of the vetoes was cast to try to keep the SC resolution from being one sided.
-
Originally posted by Steve
That we're better off without the UN.
Yes you would; I really hope GWB steers US away from UN :)
-
I just live here.
-
Originally posted by Staga
Yes you would; I really hope GWB steers US away from UN :)
Refer to the history of the League of Nations and find out how effective the UN would be sans USA.
-
Times are changing; EU Army is taking the place of the NATO in europe so US troops aren't needed in this continent.
Hopefully US will also retreat from UN; I'm sure Russia and China as superpowers are willing to take your place :)
-
Cool Staga, will they take our place financially, too?
I'd love to see us take our financial support away from the UN. It does not serve our interest in any way that I can tell. It is a vessel for Jew and America haters and little else.
EU army. What a joke. Still, it's about time you kids started taking care of yourselves.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Cool Staga, will they take our place financially, too?
I'd love to see us take our financial support away from the UN. It does not serve our interest in any way that I can tell. It is a vessel for Jew and America haters and little else.
EU army. What a joke. Still, it's about time you kids started taking care of yourselves.
lol.. and you wonder why some people cant stand americans :D
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
lol.. and you wonder why some people cant stand americans :D
And some wonder why we don't care. Lead, follow, or get the hell outta the way.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
And some wonder why we don't care. Lead, follow, or get the hell outta the way.
whatever that means
-
In the case of the UN it means get the hell outta the way since it will neither lead nor follow.
-
I see
but you know that you are a big part of the UN right?.. so that means that you should get out of your own way.
The UN is not some euro thing you know
-
The UN has become a bloated bureaucracy and lost it's effectiveness. It should be relegated the role of feeding starving nations and little else.
-
I can agree that it has become bloated but its better to have the UN as a forum for debate than to have nothing at all. Without the UN more nations would take matters into their own hands than it is now.
-
The EU Army? You can't be serious.
-
Dunno but at least Rumsfield is already seeing nightmares :D
-
I have not seen anyone yet address the jist of the article itself. How (or why) is it that this world body has devoted so much time/money/resources to promoting the Palistinian cause, and so much time/money/resources condeming Israel? How is it that they have not yet been able to come up with a simple definition for "terrorism?"
The U.N. has lost (if it ever had) its legitimacy as an international arbitor. Like the League of Nations before it, it has become the tool of choice to prop up dictators, continue oppression and suffering, and (in what is the final irony for a proportedly "democratic" body) the single biggest impediment to the spread of freedom and democracy around the globe. Either it must begin to use a single measuring stick to judge all, or it must cease to issue meaningless resolutions and condemnations.
The world must have a neutral venue for nations that are at odds with one another to meet and attempt diplomatic solutions. The U.N. is not that place now, if it ever was.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
How (or why) is it that this world body has devoted so much time/money/resources to promoting the Palistinian cause, and so much time/money/resources condeming Israel?
Maybe there is a reason for it.
Of course.. If you say a bad word about israel you are forever branded as an anti semite terrorist lover.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
The UN has become a bloated bureaucracy and lost it's effectiveness. It should be relegated the role of feeding starving nations and little else.
If the UN was religated to this they'd just spend their time and money debating the definition of "starving" and "nations". Same-old, same-old.
asw
-
I have not seen anyone yet address the jist of the article itself.
Perhaps because the article is barely worth commenting on.
Just as an example:
The list of hijacked U.N. organs goes on. The General Assembly operates through six committees of the whole. One of them, the Fourth Committee, routinely devotes 30 percent of its time to the condemnation of Israel.
So 1 of 6 committees devotes a third of it's time to the Israel/Palestine problem. Assuming all committees are equally important, you get one third of one sixth of General Assembly committee time is spent on the issue, or just over 5%.
But saying 5% of General assembly committee time is spent on the Israel/Palestine issue doesn't sound quite so bad, does it?
Every schoolchild or member of the public who walks into U.N. Headquarters today (and the entire month of December) will be greeted by a large display in the front entrance put on by that main U.N. body, the Committee on Palestinian Rights.
So a display is mounted in the UN foyer for a month about the Palestinians. Considering the issue has been festering for nearly 60 years, I'd have thought it would get a display every so often.
Or is the whole issue one that should be swept under the carpet and never mentioned?
How (or why) is it that this world body has devoted so much time/money/resources to promoting the Palistinian cause, and so much time/money/resources condeming Israel?
I'm sorry, I don't understand the premise behind the question.
The UN is the body that basically created Israel in the first place. I'm unaware of any resources spent on condemning Israel, other than people sitting around talking about it.
The UN has called for peacekeeping troops for many much smaller conflicts, and hundreds of thousands of peacekeeping troops have been deployed worldwide.
What's unusual about such a long running international conflict is that the UN hasn't yet called for peacekeepers, which is due to the intervention of the US and Israel, which would not allow them.
What the author of the article is ignoring, and hope you will ignore as well, is that the UN has no mandate to get involved in internal affairs of a country. It was set up to facilitate peaceful relations between countries. Few of it's memebers would be happy if it was allowed to intefere in purely domestic affairs.
How is it that they have not yet been able to come up with a simple definition for "terrorism?"
How is it America never did?
An Arab killing Americans, Europeans or Jews was always a terrorist to America. An Irishman killing British people, well that's a "complex issue", and said Irishmen visited the US, were guests of honour at St Patrick's day parades, etc.
I could try to dig out a photo of Gerry Adams, leader of the most active and bloody terrorist group in post war Europe, meeting Clinton and shaking his hand at the White House.
The US allowed fund raising for the IRA in the US, and never moved to prevent it (in fact, it still goes on, to fund the dissident republican groups behind the Omagh bombing)
So if the US can't define terrorism, how is the UN< which is composed of over a hundred member states, supposed to?
-
lol.. and you wonder why some people cant stand americans
Umm actually.... NO, I do not wonder that.
What I do wonder is what you saw in my statement to make you think of that. What exactly did you find offensive? The part about where it's time for the euro's to look after their own security? strike to close to the hurtful trruth for your comfort?
Or was in the comment about the rampant anti-semitisim in the UN? Are you an anti-semite?
-
I could try to dig out a photo of Gerry Adams, leader of the most active and bloody terrorist group in post war Europe, meeting Clinton and shaking his hand at the White House.
As an American, I apologize for the U.S having Bill Clinton in power.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Umm actually.... NO, I do not wonder that.
What I do wonder is what you saw in my statement to make you think of that. What exactly did you find offensive? The part about where it's time for the euro's to look after their own security? strike to close to the hurtful trruth for your comfort?
Or was in the comment about the rampant anti-semitisim in the UN? Are you an anti-semite?
Calling the EU army a joke, calling the UN a vessel for jew and america haters and finally that us "kids" should start taking care of our self.
None it hurts my feeligs tho cause its _all_ bull.
-
Calling the EU army a joke
well let's approach this logically. How many wars has this army fought? Been deployed to? Been in existence?
calling the UN a vessel for jew and america haters
We just disagree here, but then that's to be expected. I'm an American, you are an America hater and a UN apologist.
-
Oh children, children....
Lets just sum this up and get it over with.....You don't like us and our opinions and we don't you guys and yours...
Frankly I don't care anymore...little of the outside world affects my daily life right now..maybe more people should have that attitude..maybe worry about whats going on in our own houses and communities.
-
I'll only speak for myself ASTAC. I do not dislike the Euros.
-
Originally posted by Steve
I'm an American, you are an America hater and a UN apologist.
Do you know this is the exact same rhetoric the communists have used for years ?
And to make the Godwin's Law more perceivable the Nazi also used this kind of rhetoric...
-
Originally posted by Steve
I'll only speak for myself ASTAC. I do not dislike the Euros.
I don't REALLY dislike em much either..just getting annoyed is all.
I think my other point is valid though
-
Do you know this is the exact same rhetoric the communists have used for years ?
No, and I do not believe you.
-
Originally posted by Steve
well let's approach this logically. How many wars has this army fought? Been deployed to? Been in existence?
We just disagree here, but then that's to be expected. I'm an American, you are an America hater and a UN apologist.
So you have to actually fight a war to be taken seriously?
America hater and UN apologist.... I see that you are either bating, never read my posts about america and/or just can't separate critisism from hate.
-
Originally posted by Steve
No, and I do not believe you.
In fact it's pretty simple :
I'm an American, you are an America hater
===> end of discussion.
I'm an Communist, you are an Communist hater
===> end of discussion aswell.
-
You said the commnists have been using that rhetoric for years. I have never heard that, and you are uanble to substantiate it.
In short, your full of merde.
-
Va chier connard.
You see I can be rude easily, plus as it's my native langage I can post pages of insult easily than you.
Let get back to the dicussion, they even invented a definition for this : see google (http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=anti+communisme+primaire&spell=1)
I'll post you some example thursday as I've to sleep and I won't be on the net tomorow.
-
and/or just can't separate critisism from hate.
umm well when that's about all you hear from someone, it's a pretty reasonable conclusion.. or, maybe when you hear/see stuff like this:
and you wonder why some people cant stand americans
....it's a pretty easy conclusion to reach.
-
I said some people....
Did I ever say that I did?
You are ofcourse allowed to make your own conclusion on this too.... prolly easyer that way :p
-
I'll post you some example thursday as I've to sleep and I won't be on the net tomorow.
Sweet dreams.
-
If he would have been included in the list of the "people who can't stand americans" I think he would have posted it explicitly.
With a post like :
"and you wonder why I and some people can't stand americans".
It's you who put the "American hater" label on him,not him.
-
You are of course allowed to make your own conclusion on this too....
Yes well do you expect me to come to someone else's conclusion?
Honestly, for all the snide remarks and criticism you levy, do you truly think an american on this board would come to the conclusion you like America?
-
Originally posted by straffo
If he would have been included in the list of the "people who can't stand americans" I think he would have posted it explicitly.
With a post like :
"and you wonder why I and some people can't stand americans".
It's you who put the "American hater" label on him,not him.
yup
-
Originally posted by Steve
Yes well do you expect me to come to someone else's conclusion?
Honestly, for all the snide remarks and criticism you levy, do you truly think an american on this board would come to the conclusion you like America?
Think you are on your own there Steve... maybe 2 otheres that I could think of that arrive at conclusions your way.
-
As an American, I apologize for the U.S having Bill Clinton in power.
It wasn't, and isn't, just Clinton.
Go to this page:
http://www.house.gov/walsh/pr_011698.htm
It's Congressman James Walsh, New York, recieving the first annual "Bobby Sands Award".
Bobby Sands was a convicted terrorist, who was arrested after a shootout with the police.
Can you imagine the reactions on this board if a member of, for example, the Norwegian parliament said he was "honoured" to accept an award named after an Arab terrorist?
The US congress and senate gave great support to the IRA down the years. In 19790 they enforced a ban on the sale of US weapons to the police in Northern Ireland.
Joe Doherty was an IRA terrorist, convicted of murdering a soldier. HE escaped to the US and claimed political asylum. 132 members of congress signed a motion in support of him being granted asylum.
-
Nashwan haven't you heard that US is land of the free :)
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
It wasn't, and isn't, just Clinton.
Go to this page:
http://www.house.gov/walsh/pr_011698.htm
It's Congressman James Walsh, New York, recieving the first annual "Bobby Sands Award".
Bobby Sands was a convicted terrorist, who was arrested after a shootout with the police.
Can you imagine the reactions on this board if a member of, for example, the Norwegian parliament said he was "honoured" to accept an award named after an Arab terrorist?
The US congress and senate gave great support to the IRA down the years. In 19790 they enforced a ban on the sale of US weapons to the police in Northern Ireland.
Joe Doherty was an IRA terrorist, convicted of murdering a soldier. HE escaped to the US and claimed political asylum. 132 members of congress signed a motion in support of him being granted asylum.
Crap like that needs to stop...period. I really dont want any terrorists whether they are Chechan or Irish or Islamic etc in MY country.
-
It wasn't, and isn't, just Clinton.
I missed the part where anyone said it was.
-
I was, and continue to be confused why we don't more aggressively condemn the IRA for the terrorists that they are.
I think the U.S. has erred here.
-
I love Americans, they gave us the chance to kick there prettythanges and walked home with gold...GOLD BABY!!!!!
your Hockey players suck though Steve...
Steve I hate you, just cause...well...cause your Steve:D
-
What do Canadians do this time of year with no NHL?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
What do Canadians do this time of year with no NHL?
this is the 1st day in the last 7 or 8 that I can find time to browse the BBS, right now Hockey is a no subject matter, but my brain function is, I need sleep...
mostly though folks drink there sorrows:D
I don't drink so I smoke alot:cool:
-
And so it continues. No matter how tough the talk, it seems that ALL countries in some way are supporting terrorists and thier goals.
It is hypocrisy at its finest. Its much more fun to point our fingers at the enemy and complain about our neighbours horrendous faults, than it is to look in the mirror.
We will probably never see Terrorist and Terrorism truely defined due to the fact it would brand us all as supporters.
-
The UN is the body that basically created Israel in the first place.
The UN may take credit for that, though aside from voting, they did nothing. Israel had to fight it out alone.
The UN has called for peacekeeping troops for many much smaller conflicts, and hundreds of thousands of peacekeeping troops have been deployed worldwide.
I've seen the UN peacekeeping troops at action. They are worthless - not that I blame them, I wouldn't like to get killed in some else's stupid conflict either.
I would NEVER trust them with my or my dearest's life.
Having said that, the UN is not worthless. It is badly in need of a reform. It hold important humanitarian rolls and also in supervising various international agreements, both political and enviromental. Action is not it's strong side, never will be and shouldn't be anyway.
Bozon
-
Happy holiday, SLO. good to hear from you.
-
Nashwan:
I give you credit for at least answering the article, though I disagree with your dismissal of the article as unworthy of comment (bit of a contradiction, since you did in fact comment). I don't have time now to fully respond, so let me sum it up. Given all the problems around the world, the fact that the U.N. devotes as much time and energy on the Palistinians (and routinely biases that time and energy in favor of the Palistinians) seems dispropotionate. The 5% seems small, except that it is only 1 of the many such activities/committiees that are involved in the Israili-Palistinian issue. To truly get a feel for proportionality, you would need to look at all the activities as a whole, than compare that devoted to the subject issue with the time/resouces directed at other major issues, such as the Sudan or Ruwanda.
By the way, the US does have official definition of terrorism, though there are several flavors of that definition (State Dept vs DoD for example). As for the hypocracy you speak of, there is some here as well as abroad. It's not right, and I don't support it.
-
Sabre: Just to clarify, I'm not pointing a finger at the US alone here. I am serious when I say All are guilty.
Canada seems to allow every kind of scum in its borders and then grants refuge to their sorry genocidal prettythang.
Its saddening, maddening , if you actually look at our respective governments behind the door dealings and manipulations.
Why should we expect the U.N. to be any different? Its hard to expect a larger body to display honourable actions when all the member states are rife in corruption or selfserving attitudes.
Be it Americans or Canadians, or any one else for that matter, we have very little effect on how politicians act anymore.
Once elected promises are made to be broken. Laws or regulations are enacted irregardeless of public opinion.
It doesn't matter which Party you vote for, they seem equally as bad.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
What do Canadians do this time of year with no NHL?
*sigh* Euchre and karyoke. :(