Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: soda72 on June 07, 2006, 10:54:50 PM
-
UN comments trigger row with US (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5057684.stm)
When did Rush Limbaugh and Fox News become responsible for making Americans hate the U.N.?
I've only Listened to Rush a couple of times, but I'm pretty sure he didn't like the U.N. even before the 2nd Iraq war... I can't really comment on Fox News since I haven't watched it much but I would guess they weren't big fans either before the Iraq war..
-
The UN wants?
Two hand demonstration time for the UN.
Want in the left hand.
Take a dump in the right hand.
Take note of which hand gets full first.
Have a nice day.
-
The UN will get more respect from the USA when they have earned it. So far, the UN has NOT earned my respect.
-
UN can lick my fat hairy sack.
-
Funny. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Piss off, UN. (http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/assessmt/dues2005.pdf)
Love,
octavius
-
Originally posted by Octavius
Funny. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Piss off, UN. (http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/assessmt/dues2005.pdf)
Love,
octavius
Japs are almost at 20%.....wow. US is at 22...:huh
-
The UN is nothing but a front for global mafia....but like they said in that movie...keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
-
The UN has its flaws for sure, but its the best system we have had so far.
-
George Washington said "beware foreign entanglements" & that's all the un has been since it's inception.
-
The UN is a waste of Sperm
-
ah, Heater has swapped his coupons again i see... *hands Heater some glasses*
-
The lack of nuance dispayed by many board members here when the U.N. comes up in a discussion shows that many here are all but short-sighted isolationists. The distrust and downright slander towards the U.N. do reflect more on the feeling of superiority and not having to answer to anyone than any substantiated criticism towards the U.N.
It may be a cumbersome burocratic moloch but as Nilsen said, we haven't got a better alternative right now. When objectively judging the past decades one can only conclude that the positive achievements outweigh its disadvantages.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
George Washington said "beware foreign entanglements" & that's all the un has been since it's inception.
Over the last 150 years the US has demonstrated a capacity for foreign entanglements far in excess of its involvement with the UN and irrespective of Washington's warnings, so I'm not sure what your point is really.
Anyway, it strikes me how pitifully transparent this upsurge in anti-UN sentiments is, coinciding as it did with the refusal of the UNSC to endorse George and Dick's bogus Iraqi adventure back in 2003 and the resultant new-right propganda/disinfo onslaught. Seeing that the anti-war camp at the UN has largely been proven right, you detractors should be real men about it and admit that they were right and you were wrong. Yeah, fat chance, I know.
If the UN is so irrelevant, why did Bush, Powell et al frame a large part of their argument for attacking Iraq in terms of non-compliance with UN resolutions? Anyone?
If the UN is so irrelevant, why did Bush appeal for UN assistance in the Iraq reconstruction effort? Answer?
If the UN is so irrelevant, then why hasn't the US quit already? Because being in it allows you to stop it actually acomplishing anything contrary to your own interests, while simultaeneously providing a straw man for far-right talking heads and the mouth-breathers that parrot them to rail against.
-
U.N.=UnNeeded
-
downright slander towards the U.N. do reflect more on the feeling of superiority and not having to answer to anyone than any substantiated criticism towards the U.N.
It's not slander if it's true.
-
Originally posted by Thud
The lack of nuance dispayed by many board members here when the U.N. comes up in a discussion shows that many here are all but short-sighted isolationists. The distrust and downright slander towards the U.N. do reflect more on the feeling of superiority and not having to answer to anyone than any substantiated criticism towards the U.N.
It may be a cumbersome burocratic moloch but as Nilsen said, we haven't got a better alternative right now. When objectively judging the past decades one can only conclude that the positive achievements outweigh its disadvantages.
Hmmm........... lets SEE here.........
Went into the Congo during a civil? war there back in the 50's.
Disarmed the population ( of hmm think it was Freetown) that had been succesfully defending themselves from ATTACK.
Pulled out and took the weapons with em.
Result? Bunch of people got SLAUGHTERED!
Did this same thing in several countires on the African continient (think I need a good speel chekker?).
Kosavo? Bosnia Hertsavagonia?... ethnic cleansing situation, Kinda the same thing.
I could go on but I'd only be repeating myself.
Then there is the food for oil thing.
Then the food for SEX thing (many of their victoms were reported as being UNDERAGED).
Then the U.N. Troops using the SEX SLAVE (many of those SLAVES were reported as being UNDERAGED) brothels etc. in Bosnia Hertsavagoina?
If this is the best we have ..... we may be in for some REAL TROUBLE later.
And now they want to lock everyone into treaties that will EFFECTAVILY disarm (it's that new small arms treaty thing they're pushing) everyone but
the countries governments and them?
NO RESPECT from me until they EARN IT!
They have A LOT of EARNING to do!
-
Ya....like we should be worried about the UNs view of the United States.
UN.......conglomerate of Countries with different views on how World Problems should be handled. No Consensus on problem solving usually and any action taken by the UN as a whole in peacekeeping situations are usually highly ineffective.
Gee....that oughta score high on the Success-O-Meter.
Sorta like our Congress...only on a larger scale.:aok
-
I want the UN out of my city. I want them out of my country. I want them out of our national affairs.
NOW.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Over the last 150 years the US has demonstrated a capacity for foreign entanglements far in excess of its involvement with the UN and irrespective of Washington's warnings, so I'm not sure what your point is really.
Anyway, it strikes me how pitifully transparent this upsurge in anti-UN sentiments is, coinciding as it did with the refusal of the UNSC to endorse George and Dick's bogus Iraqi adventure back in 2003 and the resultant new-right propganda/disinfo onslaught. Seeing that the anti-war camp at the UN has largely been proven right, you detractors should be real men about it and admit that they were right and you were wrong. Yeah, fat chance, I know.
If the UN is so irrelevant, why did Bush, Powell et al frame a large part of their argument for attacking Iraq in terms of non-compliance with UN resolutions? Anyone?
If the UN is so irrelevant, why did Bush appeal for UN assistance in the Iraq reconstruction effort? Answer?
If the UN is so irrelevant, then why hasn't the US quit already? Because being in it allows you to stop it actually acomplishing anything contrary to your own interests, while simultaeneously providing a straw man for far-right talking heads and the mouth-breathers that parrot them to rail against.
I take a stab at it.
Some people think the UN is actually going to do the right thing from time to time so Bush and Co. tried to show they are willing to give them a shot. Guess what? The UN once again proved they are worthless and corrupt.
Was it because they wouldn't help with Saddam? Yes and No.
It was the WHY they wouldn't help that proves they are worthless.
Most people believed the intel but most of the UN would not go along with the invasion because they were either bought by SH or they were rooting for him to win so he and countries like his could continue to try and destroy the west.
As for the "why" we haven't left the UN is really quite simple.
Liberal idiots.
People who think that countries like France are better than us so if they say something it must be true.
They remind me of an abused wife. They keep getting smacked around but take all the blame thinking that they must have done something to deserve it. France and countries like them really love us and only mistreat us for our own good.
" Seeing that the anti-war camp at the UN has largely been proven right, you detractors should be real men about it and admit that they were right and you were wrong. Yeah, fat chance, I know."
What a load of crap!
They didn't find WMD in Iraq big deal! There is proof they were moved before the war but don't let that fact get in your way.
So what were they right about?
-
Seeing that the anti-war camp at the UN has largely been proven right
====
how so?
-
An organization with 150 member nations gets 60% of its annual budgetary funds from only five of those nations. If the U.S., Japan, Germany, France, and Italy pull out the U.N. is screwed.
Yet, I feel the criticism of the U.N. is largely unwarranted. After all, they've done such a bang-up job of protecting minority ethnic groups around the world from repression, rape, and ethnic cleansing.
-
I think that another good thing that Bush did for America was to make Bolton our represenitve to the UN.
Bolton said that the comments by what is in effect a civil servant were outrageous.
I am with Hang.. I want the UN out of the US... let em set up shop in ice bear country or some other little socialist mecca and they can all circle jerk each other without us.
lazs
-
Send them all to Brussels. The EU wants them, and loves them. Let the EU buy the land, build them a building, and tolerate their B.S.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
They didn't find WMD in Iraq big deal! There is proof they were moved before the war but don't let that fact get in your way.
So what were they right about?
Well, can you link me to the proof?
I'd sure like to examine it.
Thanks.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Most people believed the intel but most of the UN would not go along with the invasion because they were either bought by SH or they were rooting for him to win so he and countries like his could continue to try and destroy the west.
Saddam was bribing most of the constituent governments of the UN? Source? (This should be good).
As for the "why" we haven't left the UN is really quite simple.
Liberal idiots.
People who think that countries like France are better than us so if they say something it must be true.
They remind me of an abused wife. They keep getting smacked around but take all the blame thinking that they must have done something to deserve it. France and countries like them really love us and only mistreat us for our own good.
Is that the best you can do? Disregard countless reasons of diplomacy and geopolitical expediency for some lame metaphor about abused women and tired "lets blame the libruhls"? Ooookay.
What a load of crap!
They didn't find WMD in Iraq big deal! There is proof they were moved before the war but don't let that fact get in your way.
Put down the kool aid. There's no proof for that assertion at all other than the same type of conjecture from "informants" that told you those WMD even existed in the first place.
So what were they right about?
They were right about the WMD.
They were right about an invasion actually making global terrorism issues worse not better.
They were right about the region being destablised, as evidenced by your complete inability to now deal with the consequent nuclear proliferation issue in Iran.
They were right about increased radicalisation of the local population.
They were right about the complete absence of an Al-Qaeda-Ba'ath party linkage.
They were right about Iraq not presenting the threat to the US that Bush, Cheney et al claimed.
They were right when they warned that removing a secular and unifying regime risked opening the door to an Iraqi government dominated by Islamicists at precisely the time that you are supposed to be engaged in a "war" against radical islamic terrorism
Did I miss anything?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I want the UN out of my city. I want them out of my country. I want them out of our national affairs.
NOW.
I agree, the US would be better off by building regional relationships as needed rather then working within the UN. Even the 'humanitarian' aspects of the UN could be better handled through private organizations.
-
If it is accepted as this is the best we can do, then we are doomed to always have a mediocre implementation of what is the U.N.
I have never been a big supporter of mediocrity. But that is just me.
I wish we could get a national vote on it. There are so many more things we could spend the money on and the property would be a good place for a sports stadium.
-
Let's see, complain about US free speech to many who already feel the UN is corrupt and next to useless. That'll make us respect 'em alright. It's not too difficult to understand how "they", many of those without the freedoms and liberties we enjoy, believe it possible for the US government to exercise more control over public opinion. The time for that isn't yet ripe, they are showing their hand too early.
-
Yep... it really is time for the people of the U.S. to get to vote on staying in the UN or not... we are supporting it more and more and getting less and less out of it. the whole thing is another kyoto "get the rich" scheme.
Bolton was the best thing we have done so far as the UN is concerned in years. He has a healthy disrespect for the scum that run the UN.
lazs
-
Momus, your hindsight is 20/20. amazing
Care to enumerate the things that they were wrong about?
-
I'm sorry if you can't tell the difference between 20/20 hindsight and someone's original objections being proven right after the event Rooster.
Care to enumerate the things that they were wrong about?
Some that spring to mind would be:
The regional instability hasn't been as bad as some people predicted, particularly in relation to Jordan, Kuwait and the UAE.
The humanitarian crisis that was suggested might occur didn't transpire.
The posibility of Turkey being drawn into the conflict to preclude Kurdish independence didn't come to pass.
There's probably more, fell free to chime in..
-
They were right about the WMD.
Only because some of them were the ones who helped move them.
They were right about an invasion actually making global terrorism issues worse not better.
Wrong! The invasion only brought global terrorism out in the open. Crap has been happening for years without a lot of press.
They were right about the region being destablised, as evidenced by your complete inability to now deal with the consequent nuclear proliferation issue in Iran.
Wrong again! The UN are the ones who have not been able to deal with Iran. We have tried to let the fabled UN show how worthless they are once again.
They were right about increased radicalisation of the local population.
Really? From what I've read it's been outsiders like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who have been causing a lot of the problems.
They were right about the complete absence of an Al-Qaeda-Ba'ath party linkage.
Link? (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp)
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031201-123723-4738r.htm
They were right about Iraq not presenting the threat to the US that Bush, Cheney et al claimed.
This I can't argue with.
They were right when they warned that removing a secular and unifying regime risked opening the door to an Iraqi government dominated by Islamicists at precisely the time that you are supposed to be engaged in a "war" against radical islamic terrorism
Ok are you saying they were right because they warned it COULD happen or are you trying to say it actually happened?
Because I don't see how you can say the Iraqi government is dominated by anyone.
Did I miss anything?
Looks like about everything.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Only because some of them were the ones who helped move them.
Brilliant. which UN members was it that actually moved these non-existent stockpiles? Source please (again)
Wrong! The invasion only brought global terrorism out in the open. Crap has been happening for years without a lot of press.
Says who, you? sorry, I find the US state department a slightly more convincing source, not much more but hey, they do their best..
Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003....Terrorist incidents in Iraq also dramatically increased, from 22 attacks to 198...
Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html)
Wrong again! The UN are the ones who have not been able to deal with Iran. We have tried to let the fabled UN show how worthless they are once again.
The point that you seem to have missed is twofold; that Iran's brinksmanship has arguably been caused by the US hamfisted treatment of the Iraqi question, and that US options for dealing with Iran are hampered by Iran's influence on events in Iraq and their potential for making the Iraqi situation just that much worse for US occupying forces.
That said, the UN isn't actually the one making the fuss about Iran, it's the US whining to the IAEA about Iranian proliferation whilst their domestic nuclear program is actually permitted under the terms of the NPT.
Really? From what I've read it's been outsiders like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who have been causing a lot of the problems.
How do you think any extremist manages to operate in an insurgency? With support from the local population of course. Foreign insurgents even more so.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html
Great. An openly partisan broadsheet quoting an even more openly partisan and never substantiated op-ed piece in neo-con propaganda sheet the Weekly Standard. Not very compelling is it?
Because I don't see how you can say the Iraqi government is dominated by anyone.
Islamists hold most power in the new Iraqi government. That is a fact.
VP Tariq Al-Hashimi - Iraqi Islamic Party
VP Abdel-Mahdi - Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki - Islamic Dawa Party
Majority in Parliament held by the United Iraqi Alliance, which counts amongst it's members: Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Islamic Dawa Party, Badr Organisation, Islamic Fayli Grouping in Iraq, Islamic Virtue Party, Hezbollah Movement in Iraq, Islamic Master of the Martyrs Movement, Islamic Action Organisation etc etc etc.
Looks like about everything.
Keep digging..
-
They were right about the region being destablised, as evidenced by your complete inability to now deal with the consequent nuclear proliferation issue in Iran.
Europeans were handed this issue to deal with diplomatically. Europe failed to negotiate any type of settlement and now its the fault of the USA? :rofl
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Europeans were handed this issue to deal with diplomatically. Europe failed to negotiate any type of settlement and now its the fault of the USA?
Why should europe deal with your mess? You unwittingly helped the Mullahs into power by sponsoring the Shah. It was your pointless invasion of Iraq coupled with your idiot president's inept axis of evil pronouncements that has prompted them to hope to arm themselves with the ultimate deterrent. It's your interests that are under threat by their proposed denomination of oil sales in Euros. It's your "ally" Israel whose position of strength would be undermined by a nuclear powered Iran. Why should we care if Iran threatens your hegemonic position in the Persian Gulf region? More importantly, what are you going to do about it without turning Iraq into even more of a bloodbath than it is already? Getting back on topic, if the UN is so irrelevant then why expend so much effort getting the IAEA to report Iran to the UNSC? You may as well just offer Iran the nuclear technology they want yourselves.....oh wait - you already did that just the other day...whoops!
-
Bottom line, it's the US taxpayers that are paying the US' contributions to the UN. With as much anti-UN sentiment as there obviously is in the US, why do we keep doing it? Rush Limbaugh or any other would not be able to rally this anti-UN outspokeness if it weren't already simmering in the minds of many. The UN is justified in their fear that Americans are going to eventually get fed up and demand withdrawal. The sooner the better imo.
-
Uh, just a nit, but Momus, you keep saying, you and your. We are just as much pawns here as anyone. We have no say in what our politicians say or do, once they get into office. Just clarifying that a bit.
The only ones who can provoke a change in what our politicians say or do, is the media, and the very rich.
So please do not lump us into that mess.
And if you chose to blame us as we elected the policians currently in office, you would be mssing one point. No matter who we elect, they will do whatever fits thier agenda. So much for checks and balances.
And before you (the collective version) tell me we have recourse. Know this. I have done my part in trying to get things changed. Have you (general question aimed at no one in particular)?
-
Why should europe deal with your mess? You unwittingly helped the Mullahs into power by sponsoring the Shah.
Get your facts straight. While the US was involved in putting the Shah into power it was the Brits that came to us for help in doing so. The Brits had their hand in it as well.
We helped EUROPEANS when they asked for help in Iran and now it's ALL our fault again. :rofl
Damned if you do, damned if you dont.
More importantly, what are you going to do about it without turning Iraq into even more of a bloodbath than it is already?
I'm not gonna do a thing about it. Why? Because I am just Joe Blow that has NO say in what happens.
-
You're wasting your time, Mighty.
You forget the basic dogma;
We are Americans, and all things American are bad.
If we get involved, we're wrong. If we stay out of it, we're wrong. If we give, we're manipulative. If we take, we're greedy.
When we speak, we're conquering Imperialists. When we keep silent, we're isolationist and callous.
We're accused of being on a mission to destroy all local cultural heritage, and turn everyone into lily-white American robots. The fact that our cultural influences (movies, literature, books, attitudes, whatever) can only propagate when individuals make a conscious decision to buy, read, watch or adopt is actually an insidious form of mass-hypnosis and mind control...not choice. Repeat after me...It's all our fault...it's all our fault
We pay an inordinate portion of the UN budget, but we have no right to criticize. We need to have more respect for an organization that will put some of the most oppressive, backward governments in charge of the Human Rights Commission. God forbid we have the right to a dissenting opinion...while the Iranians prance about acting as though they have a history of tolerance, forbearance and justice. Oh yeah...and all Jews should die. Just ask 'em.
It was the US that arbitrarily carved up the Middle East after World War I, with callous disregard for thousands of years of tribal tradition and cultural influence, and set the stage for decades of renewed violence and discord, not Britain.
Anyone who lives in NYC knows how abusive and corrupt UN diplomats are...they flaunt the law with impunity, and laugh right in your face while they do it. I speak from personal experience.
The UN is an idea with merit and value in a truly cooperative world society. However, the institution today is truly no more than the worlds biggest, most organised party planner. The money paid to these flocks of unproductive, ineffective 'career diplomats' is outrageous...but that's just vicious, self-serving American propaganda.
I agree with Hang....get them out of my city, out of my country and let the EU float the bill for the next few decades. Let them enjoy the 'benefits' of having that pack of 'professionals' tearing through their neighborhoods. When they see, with their own eyes, the dirty little secrets...like how much of the money is spent on the highest priced hookers in the world...I'm sure we'll be proved wrong in our opinions.
I'd love to see a little American-style fair play on the budget thing. Same price for every seat in the hall. Wanna play, you gotta pay like everybody else. Why exactly, should we pay one nickel more than anyone else, anyway?
Oh, yeah, now I remember...we're fat, lazy, greedy Americans who deserve to be taken advantage of. We've got it coming after all. Any other nation on earth has the inherent, sovereign right to look out after it's own people and interests.
But not us.
Everybody else's hands are clean, Mighty...only ours are soiled. All other nations and peoples are pure as the driven snow.
-
WOOT!
Well done, Goomba. Well said.
:aok
-
Yes Goomba.. everybody hates america.
-
sure gettin hard to tell the players without a program.
we just filled in where momus is on the card... where you at nils?
-
I thought you knew by now Hangtime. I am a eurotard so naturally I hate america and love France and UN.
-
Easy, Nilsen...making a point.
You seem a perfectly reasonable person, and I meant nothing individually personal. Seems that even when I might disagree with a post you make, I don't have the impression that you're blind, self-aggrandizing or strident. I can respect a reasoned, if differing, opinion. I don't have any room for vomiting tripe.
You'll have to try being on this end of it one day, to get any real sense of how endless, mindless and repetitive the self-serving anti-American smack talk is.
Of course we're not perfect. Knuckleheads who suggest otherwise are....well, knuckleheads, I guess. Of course we screw up, make mistakes and some of our fearless leaders should be thrown down a deep well. Sometimes, we even speak out both sides of our face, as well. Anybody out there not guilty of the exact same thing?
However, we are not guilty of anything more, or less, than anyone else throughout history...and we've contributed a hell of a lot more than some in a very, very brief time (historically speaking).
My point is really that the venom and bile should be toned down until it's appropriate to the reality. Hypocrites calling us hypocrites is the height of stoopidity.
Like I said, making a point to certain all-too-pervasive, uninformed attitudes. Please don't feel that I intend to paint everyone on the planet in the same brush...just a particular school of thought.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I thought you knew by now Hangtime. I am a eurotard so naturally I hate america and love France and UN.
We know you hate us Nilsen so naturally we have to hate you right back! :D
J/k my friend......I still owe you a hamburger do I not? :)
-
Can anyone link to a statement by anyone in the run-up to the Iraq invasion who said "Iraq does not have WMD".
Seems to me that those who argued against invasion argued for continuing inspection regimin.
So when we came up empty just who was right and what were they right about?
-
WTFG Goomba!:aok
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Can anyone link to a statement by anyone in the run-up to the Iraq invasion who said "Iraq does not have WMD".
Seems to me that those who argued against invasion argued for continuing inspection regimin.
So when we came up empty just who was right and what were they right about?
I am to lazy to look up any links atm. However, as I recall it (could be wrong here) intially Europe (generally speaking) wanted to continue with the inspections, then just before the actual invasion they changed their tune to there are no WMD's.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I thought you knew by now Hangtime. I am a eurotard so naturally I hate america and love France and UN.
Actually, I thought you were a Norwegian.
-
Hamburger is filthy capitalist food!
:D
I really doubt there are anyone on this board that could not have a beer or 10 with any other member and not have an excellent time (or atleast a high quality barfight with the compulsory make-up drink and breakfast at the nearest motel) ;)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Actually, I thought you were a Norwegian.
Im just backing up Saintaw :)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Can anyone link to a statement by anyone in the run-up to the Iraq invasion who said "Iraq does not have WMD".
Seems to me that those who argued against invasion argued for continuing inspection regimin.
So when we came up empty just who was right and what were they right about?
Not quite what you're looking for but close.....
"The study, a quarterly report on Iraq from U.N. inspectors, notes that the U.S. teams' inability to find any weapons after the war mirrors the experience of U.N. inspectors who searched there from November 2002 until March 2003.
Many Bush administration officials were harshly critical of the U.N. inspection efforts in the months before the war. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in August 2002 that inspections "will be a sham."
The Bush administration also pointedly declined U.N. offers to help in the postwar weapons hunt, preferring instead to use U.S. inspectors and specialists from other coalition countries such as Britain and Australia.
But U.N. reports submitted to the Security Council before the war by Hans Blix, former chief U.N. arms inspector, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, have been largely validated by U.S. weapons teams. The common findings:
Iraq's nuclear weapons program was dormant."
From this article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm
I've never heard of this source before, but a couple of points in this article are ironic
Link: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7049.htm
Irony #1:
"With their report last week, the inspectors appointed by the Bush administration to search Iraq for weapons of mass destruction have had to acknowledge that the reality on the ground was totally different from the virtual reality that had been spun.
Both Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, and David Kay, his predecessor, were hawks who favoured the Iraq war. But while they try to give the administration some straws to cling to, they are professionals. After inspecting many sites, examining the voluminous documentation that has become available and interviewing many individuals, including Saddam Hussein and others in detention, they admit that the spin, to which they themselves had gladly contributed, was wrong"
Irony #2
"Like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Duelfer's group sees not a trace of revival of a nuclear programme. On the contrary, he says Iraq was further away from a nuclear weapon in 2003 than it was in 1991. It had not used the period between 1999 and 2002, when there were no inspections, for any revival. Thus, while George Bush has been maintaining that Saddam was a "growing threat" he was a diminishing danger to his neighbours and the world."
Irony #3
"Bush has been stressing that Saddam hated the US. However, Duelfer says that Saddam's interest in WMD seems to have been driven by concerns about Iran and Israel."
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Im just backing up Saintaw :)
LOL.. like he ever needed help. Saw's got a better brain than either of us. ;)
FWIW, I'm pretty sure Goomba was mopping up the floor with Momus.
-
I really doubt there are anyone on this board that could not have a beer or 10 with any other member and not have an excellent time (or atleast a high quality barfight with the compulsory make-up drink and breakfast at the nearest motel)
I agree completely....you capitalist, stock-trading, hamburger-eating Norseman, you. :D
Oh, yeah...and lutefisk smells funny! So there!
(^^This is an attempt at friendly banter, without the benefit of body language or a smile. )
-
FWIW, I'm pretty sure Goomba was mopping up the floor with Momus.
I name no names, my friend. I'll try to stick to abusing ideas, and let the rest sort itself out.
-
well said Goomba:aok
mtndog
-
Anyway, it strikes me how pitifully transparent this upsurge in anti-UN sentiments is, coinciding as it did with the refusal of the UNSC to endorse George and Dick's bogus Iraqi adventure back in 2003 and the resultant new-right propganda/disinfo onslaught.
Then you know little of the long term disgust the people in the U.S. have had for the U.N.
Your post is just a Bush bash & the point of my post couldn't have been much clearer.....hell it was one sentence.
-
Originally posted by Goomba
I agree completely....you capitalist, stock-trading, hamburger-eating Norseman, you. :D
Oh, yeah...and lutefisk smells funny! So there!
(^^This is an attempt at friendly banter, without the benefit of body language or a smile. )
Body language from you would not be beneficial so thank cod the BBS does not have that feature ;)
hehehe
-
I view the U.N. as a part of this one world govt. idea, or the New World Order. I don't like that idea, in fact I hate that idea & believe we should fight it with every fiber of our being. It may well be a brainchild of the U.S. but I fear the U.N. was just the first stab at it. I want No U.N. & No New World Order!
Also on the point of WMD's, I seem to recall the Iraqi govt. stalling U.N. inspectors for hours at gunpoint in the front of buildings they were trying to inspect while driving trucks with tarped loads out the back.
When did we as humans throw reasonable common sense out the window to chase political correctness?
Here's all the "proof" I need;
They found mobile chemical/biological weapon factories that had been cleaned up & abandoned (it was reported in the free press, A.P. carried the story)
They have found chemical artillery shells buried in the desert & in wharehouses ( not many, but WMD's none the less )
They (the Iraqi govt.) used chemical weapons on more than one occasion; I think that their repeated use of them was enough evidence that they had them & they had the knowledge to obtain more.
The fact that they hated the U.S. & directly sponsored terrorism (they didn't hide the fact that they paid suicide bombers in Israel) was enough for me to view them as a threat to our security.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Uh, just a nit, but Momus, you keep saying, you and your. We are just as much pawns here as anyone. We have no say in what our politicians say or do, once they get into office. Just clarifying that a bit.
The only ones who can provoke a change in what our politicians say or do, is the media, and the very rich.
So please do not lump us into that mess.
And if you chose to blame us as we elected the policians currently in office, you would be mssing one point. No matter who we elect, they will do whatever fits thier agenda. So much for checks and balances.
And before you (the collective version) tell me we have recourse. Know this. I have done my part in trying to get things changed. Have you (general question aimed at no one in particular)?
Agree 100% Skuzzy. I don't believe the man on the street in the USA has any more power over these type of events any more than the man on the street in London or Paris or Madrid does; i.e not a lot. Glad we can get that straight.
Elfie, you are correct in that Operation Ajax was British inspired and that we shoulder a share of the blame for those events and the some of the consequences. The Uk has however to a certain extent made efforts to improve relations with Iran in recent years and the fact remains that the US holds all the aces in normalizing releations with Iran, something which it has singularly failed to do so far. Fell free to answer any other of my points though.
Goomba, I seriously doubt that any reasonable person feels the way regarding the USA that you portray., so get down off that cross you've constructed for yourself..
If we get involved, we're wrong. If we stay out of it, we're wrong. If we give, we're manipulative. If we take, we're greedy.
When we speak, we're conquering Imperialists. When we keep silent, we're isolationist and callous.
You're going have to talk specifics to make any sense of the above statements otherwise they'll just remain obvious straw men.
We're accused of being on a mission to destroy all local cultural heritage, and turn everyone into lily-white American robots. The fact that our cultural influences (movies, literature, books, attitudes, whatever) can only propagate when individuals make a conscious decision to buy, read, watch or adopt is actually an insidious form of mass-hypnosis and mind control...not choice. Repeat after me...It's all our fault...it's all our fault
Really? Who says that? And what does it have to do with the UN? And why do you keep setting up whiny straw men instead of addressing specific issues?
It was the US that arbitrarily carved up the Middle East after World War I, with callous disregard for thousands of years of tribal tradition and cultural influence, and set the stage for decades of renewed violence and discord, not Britain.
You might want to go away and read up on the Paris Peace conference then, because the US was party to all the decisions on the middle-east following WW1. Also, you're repeating a common fallacy when you attribute middle-east boundaries to Imperial Britain; in fact these were largely due to the Ottoman Turks.
Anyone who lives in NYC knows how abusive and corrupt UN diplomats are...they flaunt the law with impunity, and laugh right in your face while they do it. I speak from personal experience.
Get this. Diplomats all over the world flaunt the law with impunity in their host countries; it's a fact of life.
The UN is an idea with merit and value in a truly cooperative world society. However, the institution today is truly no more than the worlds biggest, most organised party planner. The money paid to these flocks of unproductive, ineffective 'career diplomats' is outrageous...but that's just vicious, self-serving American propaganda.
The real propaganda is that since 2002 your leaders have been wont to disregard the UN's many achievements and instead draw disproportionate attention to relatively few shortcomings. It's a move straight out of the PNAC playbook, JUST LIKE the trumped up pretexts for the invasion of Iraq were. No-one suggests it doesn't need reform; my problem is that I can point out several ways the US has tried to undermine the UN but I can't think of any occasions on which it has seriously promoted reform other than to play to the peanut gallery back home; can you?
-
Just FYI Momus. I think Goomba stated the situation well and I concur with it. You might be surprised how many would concur.
-
You're lost me Skuzzy. On the one hand, you say this:
...we are just as much pawns here as anyone. We have no say in what our politicians say or do, once they get into office. Just clarifying that a bit.
The only ones who can provoke a change in what our politicians say or do, is the media, and the very rich.
And yet on the other you claim agreement with a post which basically does little more than restate with a large helping of self-pity the basic neo-conservative line on the UN.
Doesn't really stack up from where I'm sitting.
EDIT: Let me add this; I find it incredibly bizarre that avowed conservatives can recognise the way your government is screwing you all over on issues such as illegal immigration and are yet unable to apply the same level of critical thinking and cynicism to matters of foreign policy. It truly staggers me that a group of people can be so collectively obtuse.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Agree 100% Skuzzy. I don't believe the man on the street in the USA has any more power over these type of events any more than the man on the street in London or Paris or Madrid does; i.e not a lot. Glad we can get that straight.
I dunno about that. Rush Limbaugh could arguably be considered a "man on the street". Isn't that what the UN was whining about?
All it takes to rally a discontented people is a charismatic leader who knows how to exploit that discontent. We need look only about 70 years back to see just how motiviating and powerful one man can be.
-
Momus, you and I must be reading the post from two very different perspectives.
I find his sarcasm quite pointed. And yes, many, if not most, Americans feel we, as a people, are hated throughout the world and everytime something goes wrong, we are to be blamed for it.
I think many people have a difficult time separating our government from the people who live here. They are very different entities, yet day in and day out this very board sees many people from outside of the U.S. blaming the members of this board for all the ills of the world (an exaggeration of course).
Then when you do tell people they are different entities, we get told it is our (the people) fault for voting them in. Guess what? It does not matter who is voted in. They do what they want regardless of what we (the people) want.
Yet, we (the people) still suffer the blame for what the government does. This is not a self-pity statement. It is simply the way it is and there is nothing that is going to change it. I will go as far as to say it will get worse.
And why is it we (the people) have to put up with the endless complaints about the U.S. government? I do not see those who do complain making any useful suggestions, including yourself. Maybe due to the fact you really do know there is nothing that can be done and you are just complaining because you can?
I am guilty of complaining. But I do so knowing I have also let the elected officials know what my complaints are as well. One of my complaints is the U.N. I voiced my opinion about it some time ago. I want it gone from our shores. I want our government to stop paying for other countries dues. I am pissed my tax dollars are going to it. It serves no useful purpose, from my perspective. It is a monetary black hole. Much like welfare.
The idea was sound, the implementation sucks. Either fix it or get rid of it.
-
Nice post Goomba..
:aok
-
I think the UN is long past overdue for a new and more befitting palace....er headquarters. the best place for said location would somewhere in the low countries, perhaps the hague but somewhere in france would do just well also. in fact the french capital brussels would be a good fit as well. there is no need to have that organization on our soil and I question the need for the United States to be a member nation. The United States has earned the priviledge of dictating policy to the rest of the world it is from out sense of fairness that we do not. to the rest of the planet, count yourselves fortuitous that this republic was founded upon the judeo-christian ethic and not on sharia law. had I read goomba's post I would not have posted mine. good post goomba.
-
TY, Gents for the positives.
It's too bad the counter opinion had to border on snotty personal slights, as I tried to avoid that kind of shallow approach. Discussion might have been more interesting.
However, it seems my point, while missed completely by some, still continues to be made for me.
-
... dang, I think this must have been one of these okies gathering or something...
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I think many people have a difficult time separating our government from the people who live here.
Welcome to my world. Apparently we're all little Chirac's.
-
Yeah, I know what you mean Saw. Dunt worry, as far as I am concerned, you stand on your own merit.
Well,...maybe "merit" is not quite right...uh,..hmmm,.."stand" may not be right either. Uh,..
Awww, whut the hell. I am jus a redneck frum Texas, whut do I know? :D
-
Good point, Saw...sad to say I've been guilty as charged, now that I think about it.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
The UN has its flaws for sure, but its the best system we have had so far.
True... UN is failing just like the League of Nations did... here is how... lets see.... UN tells some country not to do something.. and that country tells them to take a hike and the UN is like.... aaaahhh.. ok... UN has no backbone what so ever and that makes me mad because when the UN cowers in the corner the US takes over and then ZING.. im sitting in some nasty, hot, and dirty taking care of something that the UN should be doing.. whew, i feel better now, thanks for listening. :aok
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Not quite what you're looking for but close.....
Both links you showed were to reports dated 2004. I'm looking for someone with 20/20 foresight.
What I'm looking for is the leader who's intel showed him what was what beforehand and made a statement saying so.
-
Hamburger is filthy capitalist food!
Since you are trading stocks on a nearly daily basis.....doesnt that make you a capitalist? Maybe I should get some extra hamburgers ready? :D
-
Originally posted by Goomba
Good point, Saw...sad to say I've been guilty as charged, now that I think about it.
I too think I may be guilty as charged when it comes to lumping European citizens into the same group as their gov'ts. In the future I will do my best to avoid this. If on occasion I fail, please dont hesitate to gently remind me. :)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Both links you showed were to reports dated 2004. I'm looking for someone with 20/20 foresight.
What I'm looking for is the leader who's intel showed him what was what beforehand and made a statement saying so.
The link I showed references Bliz's report to the UN just BEFORE we went into Iraq, specifically the part that says
"But U.N. reports submitted to the Security Council before the war by Hans Blix, former chief U.N. arms inspector, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, have been largely validated by U.S. weapons teams. The common findings:
Iraq's nuclear weapons program was dormant."
That's why I started my post of by saying it might not be exactly what you were looking for, but it does show that the UN Security Council and presumably, the Leaders of those Council members by extension, had such a report that said the WMD program was dormant.
-
Yeah, but Blix ended his March 7 2003 report with,
How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions.
I appreciate your post Stringer, but Blix did not have the foresight and statement I am looking for. He did not say WMDs did not exist, he just asked for more time and prudence.
I think the leader and statement I seek do not exist.
-
Dang, how did I miss this fabulous thread???
I love this quote from the article : and engage with the American public to say the UN matters,
Why would anyone want to lie? As many have stated, the UN has become so irrelevant it isn't even funny. The UN could serve a purpose in the world, if it ever showed the integrity and brains to do it, but the greed and power mongering will prevent that for years to come.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
The UN will get more respect from the USA when they have earned it. So far, the UN has NOT earned my respect.
(http://www.oracleofottawa.org/applause.gif)
-
I've said it back then and i'll say it again: Why can't people stop regurgitating what the boob toob tells them?
Iraq's threat was WMD's. It was removed. Was it Nuclear? I dont know. But they were working on it.
Bio-Chems?? YES.
People freak out with the atomic bomb yet fail to realize that chemical weapons and biologicals are far deadlier, far easier to produce and far easier to 'deploy' . Iraq had bio-chems and HAD used them against its own population.
After the first gulf war it became clear that Hussein was not only willing to invade its neighbors but also AFTER his defeat he became MORE likely to export such weapon tech.
Thus that threat had to be removed. And the threat are not the stockpiles of weapons but the SCIENTISTS and the infrastructure used to create the weapons. It really is better to sell the secret of how to make a weapon than to sell the actual weapon especially if your country is being blockaded.
Thus the US and allied forces went in and took out as many of the scientists and infrastructure to make these weapons.
However, try explaining THAT to the average tv viewer around the world. This is beyond their capability to think and understand. Its far easier to give them the 'nuke' word (which they do understand) as a reason even if later on it is proven there were no nukes. Heck even now i doubt people will understand the nature of the threat.
And yes, the UN is completely useless for global military matters and decisions. Too many interests colliding and make it ineffective. It is a good humanitarian institution but really, they should give up on the 'world police' aspect of it and concentrate on the law, bussiness and humanitarian side.
The UN would work if it had its own military but that will never happen.
-
(http://www.duhmag.com/sitebuilder/images/Kool-Aid_Man2-244x255.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Yeah, but Blix ended his March 7 2003 report with,
I appreciate your post Stringer, but Blix did not have the foresight and statement I am looking for. He did not say WMDs did not exist, he just asked for more time and prudence.
I think the leader and statement I seek do not exist.
True enough Holden. But wasn't the onus on this Admin to prove their accusation, not on Blix to prove a negative?
Look, I voted for Bush in '00 (but wrote in Powell in '04), and I think the international community didn't have to make a definative "They don't have WMD's" proof statement, but I do think our Admin needed more than "Yes they do have WMD's" statement to invade. They needed proof. They didn't have it.
I know we justified some of this by showing that Iraq didn't prove that they just didn't have them, but also that they destroyed them, but we sure didn't support our case, IMO.
-
They needed proof. They didn't have it.
Actually, they did have proof. That proof was in the CIA report. Lots of the stuff in that report still hasnt been accounted for that I know of.
If Iraq did indeed destroy the stuff, then why didn't they have it verified?
Personally, I think they either hid the stuff or, moved it out of the country. We'll probably never know for sure though.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Actually, they did have proof. That proof was in the CIA report. Lots of the stuff in that report still hasnt been accounted for that I know of.
If Iraq did indeed destroy the stuff, then why didn't they have it verified?
Personally, I think they either hid the stuff or, moved it out of the country. We'll probably never know for sure though.
I think you are quite probably very close to the truth, if not dead on the truth. History may well show the war prevented a proliferation of WMD.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
True enough Holden. But wasn't the onus on this Admin to prove their accusation, not on Blix to prove a negative?
Not questioning that at all.
What I do see as a little revisionist is those who seem to forget that it wasn't just "Bush's cherry picked CIA reports" claiming WMD presence, it was several independent foreign intel agencies backing up Bush's claims to some degree. I remember no group that got it right (at least as it looks today.)
The opposition reasoning to Bush's decision just said let the inspectors have more time, not that Saddam was clean. Nobody got the intel right enough to be righteous about it.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Since you are trading stocks on a nearly daily basis.....doesnt that make you a capitalist? Maybe I should get some extra hamburgers ready? :D
I just exploit the filthy capitalist pigs! The money goes goes straight to our farming collective and some to the party. :)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I just exploit the filthy capitalist pigs! The money goes goes straight to our farming collective and some to the party. :)
You crack me up Nilsen. I'm still gonna get more hamburgers ready for ya. :D
-
Originally posted by Elfie
You crack me up Nilsen. I'm still gonna get more hamburgers ready for ya. :D
Your dead cow i can eat, but keep that capitalist crack narcotica and rock & roll music to yourself pig!
:D
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Your dead cow i can eat, but keep that capitalist crack narcotica and rock & roll music to yourself pig!
:D
:rofl
-
Goomba has put into words the sentiment of most Americans who actually think about it.... Not the pasty hand wringing guilt monger liberals but the real Americans. Myself... I don't really care who hates us or why they are so petty as to be jealous...
I simply realize that is the case and deal with each case of American bashing as it surfaces. I simply asssume that no matter what an American does... there is a very large gay socialist your-0-peean contingent that will spew out their hate.
I want no part of them having any say at all in what America does. I want out of the scum filled, morally rotten UN with it's cannibals and despot headed human rights commitees.
As for WMD.... it was a big county iraq was... the UN had a small team of inspectors who were being dennied access to things they wanted to see. They were being jerked around just like a guilty despot with hidden WMD might do.... We told him that he had to live up to what the UN had agreed to and he said stuff it. The UN did nothing. We did something.
lazs
-
How old are you lazs2?
-
Lazs is older than dirt. :D
-
Lazs is so old he farts dust
-
old folks fart lazs
-
Originally posted by Momus--
If the UN is so irrelevant, why did Bush, Powell et al frame a large part of their argument for attacking Iraq in terms of non-compliance with UN resolutions? Anyone?
If the UN is so irrelevant, why did Bush appeal for UN assistance in the Iraq reconstruction effort? Answer?
To placate the leftists in OUR country (i.e. the MEDIA), who place much stock in the leftists of the U.N.
-
Originally posted by Octavius
old folks fart lazs
At least those old farts smell better than the young ones. :)
-
yep... old and feeble... barely strong enough to squeeze the trigger.
lazs
-
The UN has never been able to maintain or complete a peace keeping mission without strong support from the US military. Not to mention that the UN leaders are corrupt. But sadly most politicians from any and all countries are corrupt in one way or the other. Plus the UN is a reactive and not a proactive unit and they are slow to react. When there is a crisis, by the time they come to a conclusion on what to do the crisis is either over or has escalated to beyond their capability.
-
Originally posted by Tac
I've said it back then and i'll say it again: Why can't people stop regurgitating what the boob toob tells them?
Iraq's threat was WMD's. It was removed. Was it Nuclear? I dont know. But they were working on it.
Bio-Chems?? YES.
People freak out with the atomic bomb yet fail to realize that chemical weapons and biologicals are far deadlier, far easier to produce and far easier to 'deploy' . Iraq had bio-chems and HAD used them against its own population.
After the first gulf war it became clear that Hussein was not only willing to invade its neighbors but also AFTER his defeat he became MORE likely to export such weapon tech.
Thus that threat had to be removed. And the threat are not the stockpiles of weapons but the SCIENTISTS and the infrastructure used to create the weapons. It really is better to sell the secret of how to make a weapon than to sell the actual weapon especially if your country is being blockaded.
Thus the US and allied forces went in and took out as many of the scientists and infrastructure to make these weapons.
However, try explaining THAT to the average tv viewer around the world. This is beyond their capability to think and understand. Its far easier to give them the 'nuke' word (which they do understand) as a reason even if later on it is proven there were no nukes. Heck even now i doubt people will understand the nature of the threat.
And yes, the UN is completely useless for global military matters and decisions. Too many interests colliding and make it ineffective. It is a good humanitarian institution but really, they should give up on the 'world police' aspect of it and concentrate on the law, bussiness and humanitarian side.
The UN would work if it had its own military but that will never happen.
AMEN!!! I could not agree more.