Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on April 13, 2005, 09:24:47 PM
-
I know many of you have been down on the United Nations for different reasons, but they've FINALLY done something about the threat of terrorism!
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050413/ap_on_re_us/un_nuclear_terrorism
Thanks to their hard work, it will soon be illegal for terrorists to use nuclear weapons.
Yee-haw! I can finally get rid of those supplies and ammo and send my children off to school without worrying.
-
The world is a much safer place now..boy am I glad we have a world governing body like that to protect us..oh wait..you say that they don't have any real authority? Well, nevermind then.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
.you say that they don't have any real authority? Well, nevermind then.:rolleyes:
it has as much authority as its members let it have, just like everything else.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
it has as much authority as its members let it have, just like everything else.
and there lies the problem...you have like 1/100th that want to actually enforce resolutions and the others that want the protections/benefits of the UN without having to actually spend any manpower/money on it....It's a useless body and might as well be disbanded. Or stick only to what they are good at..Disaster relief and Aid.
-
In a nutshell, this sentence sums up why the UN must go:
"The General Assembly has tried for years to define terrorism, so far unsuccessfully because of the argument that one nation's terrorist can be another's freedom fighter."
The fact is that freedom fighters do not commit random violence against innocent people, with foresight and malice. Those are terrorists, no matter what their cause.
-
This is also what is wrong with the coverage of the war in Iraq, as an example. A group of Iraqis that attack a government post or US forces can be considered to be "freedom fighters", though given their motive, it is only a "freedom" to do as they say. Foriegn fighters, suicide bombers, etc are not freedom fighters, regardless of why they fight-they are terrorists, plain and simple.
The media should be able to make this distinction, but does not.
-
small brains have a fun time thinking up small idea's...
willing or not, you have killed innocent people, stop trying to paint a colorful portrait you ignorant peep...
when you can't win facing your enemy, go around and plant one up his bellybutton and watch him get stupid...
9/11 was the thing up your ass, now your just being stupid, this ain't over by a long shot, they'll wait till your nice and compfy again and come back and put another one up your arrogant ass...
little brains never learn...
oh UN tries to manage the world Govr.'s....Hundreds of em
US has 1 Govr' and only 375 mil. peeps...
here you are tryin to equate 2 entities that are so different like apples to oranges...
small brain small vision, come back when you've actually used more then 1 brain cell
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Thanks to their hard work, it will soon be illegal for terrorists to use nuclear weapons.
Now if they would just make it illegal for terrorists to have guns we'd really be safe.
Or better yet. Make terrorism itself illegal
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Or better yet. Make terrorism itself illegal
First, you're going to have to define terrorism.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
This is also what is wrong with the coverage of the war in Iraq, as an example. A group of Iraqis that attack a government post or US forces can be considered to be "freedom fighters", though given their motive, it is only a "freedom" to do as they say. Foriegn fighters, suicide bombers, etc are not freedom fighters, regardless of why they fight-they are terrorists, plain and simple.
The media should be able to make this distinction, but does not.
Depends on your point of view
Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
One mans terrorist, is anothers partisan..."freedom" at any cost is a hard mantra to argue with when you reach that point
Tronsky
-
Didn't the USA actualy help start the UN as an organisation.
"In 1945, representatives of 50 countries met in San Francisco at the United Nations Conference on International Organization to draw up the United Nations Charter. Those delegates deliberated on the basis of proposals worked out by the representatives of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States at Dumbarton Oaks, United States in August-October 1944. The Charter was signed on 26 June 1945 by the representatives of the 50 countries. Poland, which was not represented at the Conference, signed it later and became one of the original 51 Member States."
Rather typical .
"Its broke and don't do what we want anymore!"
"Aw Shucks shall we work hard to fix it?"
"Naw jus throw it away boys we'll make new one all of our own"
:rofl :rofl
-
Thatcher labelled Mandela a terrorist but if history has taught us anything its that she was totally insane.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I have a question: Was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist?
Yes.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
The fact is that freedom fighters do not commit random violence against innocent people, with foresight and malice. Those are terrorists, no matter what their cause.
The thing is, that is exactly what many foreign graduates of the US Army School of the Americas at Fort Benning have been doing for years.
Threatening to use radioactive material or devices — or unlawfully demanding nuclear material or other radioactive substances would also be a crime. Accomplices and organizers would also be covered by the convention.
Countries that are parties to the treaty would be required to make these acts criminal offenses under their national laws, "punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account the grave nature of these offenses."
The convention requires all states that sign the treaty to adopt measures to make clear that acts designed to provoke terror in the general public or in specific groups cannot be justified under any circumstances "by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.
I can't believe anyone here would think this is a bad thing, well no rational person anyway.
-
But...but they were the good terrorist Momus.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
McVeigh was not a terrorist, if you think so you are an “anti-American”.
Hmmmm.... What oscar did you pull that out of? McVeigh was a terrorist. :(
Woof
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Then perhaps you people should start fixing you own definition of terrorism before you start on the UN. You see the definition used by the FBI and US government is that only foreign individuals and organisations can be labelled “terrorists”.
McVeigh was not a terrorist, if you think so you are an “anti-American”.
FBI definition of terrorism: "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
from http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/fbi_terror95/terrusa.htm
Nothing about foreign or domestic anything there. Check your facts before you post.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
"Naw jus throw it away boys we'll make new one all of our own"
I`m shocked. You finaly came up with a top notch idea. Way to go. I`m proud of ya.
We helped promote Budweiser also, but that don`t mean we are forced to swallow the horse piss.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Yes.
Timothy McViegh attacked a federal building, something the US has done in Iraq during the Gulf War and I believe the Iraq War.
-
Originally posted by SkyWolf
Hmmmm.... What oscar did you pull that out of? McVeigh was a terrorist. :(
Woof
It makes him feel good Skywolf, GS is the poster boy for noodle envy
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
FBI definition of terrorism: "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
from http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/fbi_terror95/terrusa.htm
Nothing about foreign or domestic anything there. Check your facts before you post.
his google search musta been wacked
-
I had heard mcveigh called a "domestic terrorist".
As for the U.N. dump it. I can see how impotent countries would like a say in running powerful ones and... UN leaders like a shot at all the power and graft and fame but... for the U.S. it is lose/lose.
If I have any say I will allways vote to get out of the UN.
lazs
-
Scholtz, what you quoted there was a law defining FTO's, or Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Your quote basically says that for something to be a Foreign Terrorist Organization, it has to be foreign, an organization, and engage in terrorism.
The FBI's blanket definition of terrorism doesn't include any national origin.
-
Don't forget though, that every law and organization of the US government is free to come up with its own definition of terrorism. So while your assertion about the FBI's definition is incorrect, there may well be govt organizations that define terrorists as strictly foreign. Wouldn't surprise me one bit.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
FBI definition of terrorism: "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
from http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/fbi_terror95/terrusa.htm
Nothing about foreign or domestic anything there. Check your facts before you post.
Oh please, if he or skydancer actually checked for facts before
starting their usual diatribes against America, they wouldn't have
3 posts between them.
-
No diatribe here. Read the posts don't go on what other idiots in here say.
All I said was you guys helped set the UN up. A fine achievement in my opinion. Seems a bit churlish to chuck it out now just cos in its current form it doesn't suit you. You have to live on this planet with a lot of other nations might as well make the effort to get along.
Come on thats not anti american its anti anyone who starts something then wont get involved when things dont go exactly your way. Its like nah nayh not playing anymore in a kids game!
Wonder how your country felt when the Soviets started the I'm not playing anymore game back in the late fourties early fifties?
-
skyprancer... are you comparing us to the soviet union of the 50's?
There is nothing wrong with dumping an unworkable idea. to not do so leads to things like die hard commies still thinking the communism works and that is just hasn't been done right yet.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Didn't the USA actualy help start the UN as an organisation.
"In 1945, representatives of 50 countries met in San Francisco at the United Nations Conference on International Organization to draw up the United Nations Charter. Those delegates deliberated on the basis of proposals worked out by the representatives of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States at Dumbarton Oaks, United States in August-October 1944. The Charter was signed on 26 June 1945 by the representatives of the 50 countries. Poland, which was not represented at the Conference, signed it later and became one of the original 51 Member States."
Rather typical .
"Its broke and don't do what we want anymore!"
"Aw Shucks shall we work hard to fix it?"
"Naw jus throw it away boys we'll make new one all of our own"
:rofl :rofl
Didnt we also create the League of Nations after WW1? It was about the same as the UN is now, except the US didnt join the League of Nations which it worked to create...
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Read the posts don't go on what other idiots in here say.
Other idiots=Zulu/Americon.....on and on..Tin whatever it was.
Wonder how your country felt when the Soviets started the I'm not playing anymore game back in the late fourties early fifties?
Probably like...Talk to us in the 80s, 90s, and the years of 2000, then tell us..How ya like me now biatch? :D
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Timothy McViegh attacked a federal building, something the US has done in Iraq during the Gulf War and I believe the Iraq War.
This is interesting.... I never knew that the fine citizens of America Junior harbored so much hostility towards us.
Woof :rolleyes:
-
I can't believe anyone here would think this is a bad thing, well no rational person anyway.
It's not a bad thing at all. Who is required to sign this treaty? Who is responsible for ensuring enforcement? Finally, what are the consequences for 1) failure to sign the treaty, 2) failure to enforce it?
With the UN's track record I really dont see any hope of this being enforced....ever. That, is exactly what is wrong with the UN today. They pass resolutions but lack the will to enforce them.
Until the UN finds the will to enforce it's own resolutions, I feel it's best for the US to pull out.
-
you know, its a lot easier to fix something from the inside...
-
Originally posted by vorticon
you know, its a lot easier to fix something from the inside...
I dont believe the will to fix what is broke is there either.
-
Vorticon. True.
Exactly what I'm trying to say!
Together weare strong divided we fall ultimately. Why is America hell bent on going it alone? Its just not good. On a very small planet one nation persuing its own agenda over and above everyone else is not good.
-
why fix it? what use is it?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Together weare strong divided we fall
Sung to the tune of Looking For A Place To Lean On. :D
Why is America hell bent on going it alone?
Maybe because so many countries have decided they want to be designated as soap retrievers. :D
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Why is America hell bent on going it alone? Its just not good.
Indeed. It's far better to just sit and do nothing; after all, that's where the UN excels. Like the League of Nations before it, in fact.
Where are the Neville Chamberlains when you need them? Oh, that's right; they hang out in NYC over on the East River from 42nd to 48th Streets.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
why fix it? what use is it?
lazs
Ya know, I`ve got a lawn mower sitting around that needs some fixing, but I seriously doubt I will. It was a POS when I got it. If I were to fix it , it would still be a POS that wasn`t worth the trouble to begin with.
-
Together weare strong divided we fall ultimately. Why is America hell bent on going it alone?
With the UN's track record I really dont see any hope of this being enforced....ever. That, is exactly what is wrong with the UN today. They pass resolutions but lack the will to enforce them.
Until the UN finds the will to enforce it's own resolutions, I feel it's best for the US to pull out.
The UN isnt *strong*. The UN lacks the intestinal fortitude to make the tough descions.
That answer your question?
-
Originally posted by SkyWolf
This is interesting.... I never knew that the fine citizens of America Junior harbored so much hostility towards us.
Woof :rolleyes:
I'm sorry, was my statement incorrect somehow?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Timothy McViegh attacked a federal building, something the US has done in Iraq during the Gulf War and I believe the Iraq War.
How do you equate bombing a US Federal building resulting in 160 deaths to a war where strategic targets are hit?
-
I don't want a strong UN... I have no use for powerful governments or organizations much less a one world government.
The only way I would support a UN is if it's powers were extremely limitied in scope and that is not what they want... They can plant trees or fix sewage systems or deliver food or books or medicine.... other than that.... I want no part of em.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Elfie
How do you equate bombing a US Federal building resulting in 160 deaths to a war where strategic targets are hit?
I'm not sure what the number of deaths have to do with it. How many Iraqi federal employees died in the destruction of thier federal buildings?
I can compare them because they are both federal buildings. And the US government believes that federal buildings are legitimate targets.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I'm sorry, was my statement incorrect somehow?
Well... I wasn't actually addressing the statement. I really was amazed that so many Canadians seemed to dislike us so much. :rolleyes:
That said....this country was pretty divided about the Gulf War and the War in Iraq. People, as a general rule, get along better than Governments. I frequently disagree with the Actions of the US Government. But I can't control it anymore than you can. And I'm also concerned with the Right Wing's portrayal of anyone who doesn't agree with Bush as unpatriotic or pro-terrorist. Disagreeing with the Govt. is what America is all about. It's the most AMERICAN thing you can do. At least it SUPPOSED to be.
One thing to remember... this country is run by rich, old, white men. And If the 9-11 types continue to "stuff one up our oscares" then we will get it stopped. Even if we have to pave the Middle East and put up a big Gas Pump. We are big, we are strong, and we are Patriotic to a fault when attacked. We are still the Giant with a terrible resolve and we will band together to kick the $h_t out of anyone we feel threatens us....right or wrong.
Now.... I don't even know anyone who thought the War in Iraq was a good idea, or was properly researched, planned, or executed. But I'm just an old fat white guy. But I have little cash so no one in the current administration gives a rats oscar what I think.
Woof
-
Originally posted by Toad
Where are the Neville Chamberlains when you need them? Oh, that's right; they hang out in NYC over on the East River from 42nd to 48th Streets.
Yeah, they hangout with the Dulles brothers types.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
How do you equate bombing a US Federal building resulting in 160 deaths to a war where strategic targets are hit?
Because they are both Federal Buildings? Timothy McVeigh was just as "at war" with the U.S. Govt as we are with Iraq.
-
"I'm also concerned with the Right Wing's portrayal of anyone who doesn't agree with Bush as unpatriotic or pro-terrorist. Disagreeing with the Govt. is what America is all about. It's the most AMERICAN thing you can do. At least it SUPPOSED to be.
One thing to remember... this country is run by rich, old, white men. "
"Now.... I don't even know anyone who thought the War in Iraq was a good idea, or was properly researched, planned, or executed. But I'm just an old fat white guy. But I have little cash so no one in the current administration gives a rats oscar what I think. "
At last someone who doesn't just spout rightwing kneejerk crap! The real Voice of America? There is hope. Skywolf
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I'm not sure what the number of deaths have to do with it. How many Iraqi federal employees died in the destruction of thier federal buildings?
I can compare them because they are both federal buildings. And the US government believes that federal buildings are legitimate targets.
Timothy McVeigh was an extremist who was trying to make a statement. He belonged to a small group of like minded radicals. His act in no way compares to the US military striking legitimate military targets. In war, enemy governments are a legitimate target.
-
Originally posted by Munkii
Because they are both Federal Buildings? Timothy McVeigh was just as "at war" with the U.S. Govt as we are with Iraq.
Only in his own mind. I think we both agree that there are far better ways to resolve issues with ones own gov't than resorting to bombing Federal buildings.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Only in his own mind. I think we both agree that there are far better ways to resolve issues with ones own gov't than resorting to bombing Federal buildings.
I totally agree. Personally the OKC bombing was much worse than WTC. It's just McVeigh thought he needed to bomb the place to make a statement, but he was "at war" with the government. We are "at war" with Iraq.
-
Elfie, look up the word "compare" then look up the word "contrast".
"Only in his own mind. I think we both agree that there are far better ways to resolve issues with ones own gov't than resorting to bombing Federal buildings."
Or rebelling against the King?
PS: The US didn't declare war on Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
His act in no way compares to the US military striking legitimate military targets. In war, enemy governments are a legitimate target.
Well..... assuming the War is legitimate to begin with then that may be true. I seem to remember hearing that there may have been some small uncertainty on the part of a few as to the legitimacy of the Iraq War. At least it seems like I may have seen that somewhere. Anyway, whenever the US has gone to "war" since WWII they have followed rules of engagement that allow the enemy plenty of safehavens and places to aim from. Wars can only be won if they have very few rules. Anything else spares the lives of the "enemy" at the expense of our own soldiers lives. The ability to destroy an enemy force only works if you use that ability. I also seem to recall that war sucks and might even be a thing to be avoided.
Woof