Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Habu on February 02, 2003, 06:47:32 PM
-
It is interesting when things like the US's hunt for weapons in Iraq or the war on terrorism how many times people in these forums or in the press bring up the United Nations. It is as if the United Nations is some kind of higher body that should be dictating what the US should be doing.
The UN is anything but. It has become highjacked by third world despotic regimes and euro-weenie (France) countries that use it as a mouthpiece to promote their agendas and to block any criticism of them or of their dictatorial colleagues. So next time some tries to quote a UN resolution that condemns Israel's fight to exist or the US's war on terrorism remember these facts.
Some recent examples of why the UN should not be taken seriously.
Last week it was announced that Iraq and Iran will co-chair the UN's key disarmament negotiating forum during its May 12 to June 27 meetings in Geneva. Yes right now when the two most important situations affecting world peace are the North Korean nuclear crisis and Iraq's refusal to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, the UN makes these appointments. So how credible is the UN?
The week before Libya was elected to chair the UN Human Rights Commission. Yes that is right Libya. No I did not make this up. What are the odds that this commission will focus any attention on any of the human rights atrocites occurring in third world Arab countries? Of course Libya is only the chair, the rest of the commission will insure that justice is done. Right? Well lets look at some of the rest of the members.
The dictatorships of Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan Syria and Cuba are on all it. So is Zimbabwe, possibly worst human rights abusers in Africa. China and Russia are all members of this 53 member commission? An argument may be made for Russia and China (despite what is going on in Chechnya and Tibet) inclusion based on their size and power but what argument can be made for any of the others mentioned being there?
Yes those countries are all responsible for making the resolutions that condemn the countries that abuse human rights. Of course they vote in blocs and make sure that they use these coalitions to deflect attention on true human rights abusers and focus it on countries like Israel. That is why of the 59 General Assembly resolutions made during the 2001 session almost half dealt with Israel while the General Assembly remained silent of the actions of many ruthless undemocratic regimes.
As long as the UN has the naive notion that every state is equal to every other, regardless of whether it is a dictatorship or a democracy and regardless of its record on human civil, and political rights, it will continue to be irrelevant.
Remember that next time someone tells you it is not.
-
sniff....
sniff....
Stinky bait.
-
It is all true.
I just wanted to point out the obvious just in case anyone here actually thought the UN was important.
-
I don't think the League Of"UN" is important. It IS an embarrassment, however............
Cabby
-
Originally posted by Habu
Last week it was announced that Iraq and Iran will co-chair he UN's key disarmament negotiating forum during its May 12 to June 27 meetings in Geneva. Yes right now when the two most important situations affecting world peace are the North Korean nuclear crisis and Iraq's refusal to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, the UN makes these appointments. So how credible is the UN?
The chair is held by nations in alphabetical order, hence Iran and Iraq are next. Piss poor timing inho but not quite the great UN conspiracy some want us to believe.
-
:)
-
:rolleyes:
Please tell me you were drunk when you posted that Russian.
Habu, the UN is not worth the land it's HQ sits on. The US needs to cease all funding for it and see just how far the 3rd world dregs get.
-
Right on Bodhi.
-
George Washington warned us about getting involved in stuff like this, the UN that is .
-
It is as if the United Nations is some kind of higher body that should be dictating what the should be doing.
Hrmmmm...thats exactly what Saddam thinks too...
Tronsky
-
lol Nice one. :D
-
So if France is weenie the US of A must be faschist?
-
Originally posted by Duedel
So if France is weenie the US of A must be faschist?
The US is the greatest democracy in the world. After WW2 it defended Germany against Russia. Remember the Berlin airlift?
France on the other hand never lets a opportunity to thumb it's nose at the US slip by. The latest episode where France and Germany refused to support the US's initative against Iraq in not the first. Remember the air raid on Libya when France would not let the US overfly its air space? Or how about in June 2000 during President Clinton's last year in office when France was the only one of 107 countries to refuse to sign a U.S. initiative aimed at encouraging democracy around the world. You can trace a similar series of slights right back to the end of WW2.
When Charles de Gaulle became president of France after the war, he was resentful that FDR had refused to recognize his Free French resistance over the Vichy regime during the war. De Gaulle decided never to depend on the Americans again, and though he was an ally of the United States, he was an exceptionally cranky one, pursuing détente with the Soviet Union, withdrawing militarily from NATO, and establishing an independent French nuclear force.
Why are the French so quick to try to disagree with the US? Simple, they resent and fear dominance of American power—militarily, economically, culturally, and technologically. The French oppose the United States, quite simply, for what it is—the most powerful country on earth.
The fact that your country Germany would now choose to support France over its staunchest protector and friend, the United States, only shows the world how ungrateful the German people are. There were hundreds of thousands of US troops ready to die defending Germany from the USSR during the Cold War. I guess that means little to you now that it is over and the Soviets are no longer a threat.
Take your facist comment and shove it up your arse.
-
To make things short and understandable
And as we don't have the right to disagree with you :
"greatest democracy" ?
a demograzy like your ?
no thanks ...
Et puis merde je vais pas me faire chier à instruire un nye culturny.
-
The truth hurts don't it straffo.
-
You missed the whole point
Originally posted by straffo
And as we don't have the right to disagree with you
Why should have we authorized over fly our soil ?
Only to please the US ?
Sorry but I don't expect my governement to rick life of some citizen only to please another country .
Even a friendly one can french Air Force operate freely on US soil ?
Answer (obvious) : NO
It's called sovereignty you asked we answered : NO
And btw we don't fear USA otherwise we will bellybutton lick the US like some other Yuropean country.
-
Ok Habu,
USA is the greatest nation on earth
Everyone must agree with it, because the most powerful nation on earth cannot be wrong.
Everyone must support it with military materiel because the greatest nation on earth cannot be wrong.
The UN must be bad because the USA disagrees with it.
The USA has the right to invade sovereign territory all over the world for whatever reason.
The USA never makes mistakes.
Would that be a fair representation of your understanding of international relations, or would you care to fill us in a bit further.
-
If ya don't like the US or it's policies, that's cool. We don't do everything right.
I'de rather have just a few REAL allies than 50 suckin our hind titty and takin our money.
UN.....what a corrupt, ineffective and useless body of work.
-
yea if we (conservatives) dont agree with them (whoever it is this week) they ( insert u.n.) must be the bad guys rush told me so.
sigh
im an american (vet also) and i think the un is right this time. goin lawless rouge state is not the way for our counry to go now or ever. no matter what chimp says.
p.s.
please please dont think even most americans are like these guys. the conservatives here go nuts when they smell blood, standard false partiotic buffoonery mostly but well intentioned if you can imagin the concept, you guys don't have this in your countrys?
-
So let me get this straight towd....the US is the lawless rogue state and not Iraq?
You are in support of a body of nations without the will nor the teeth to enforce the 17 passed resolutions which have been violated by Iraq?
You believe we should submit to the UN when it is not in OUR countries national interest?
Germany and France are true allies of the US?
No pissin match pls....just direct and honest answers?
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
yea if we (conservatives) dont agree with them (whoever it is this week) they ( insert u.n.) must be the bad guys rush told me so.
sigh
im an american (vet also) and i think the un is right this time. goin lawless rouge state is not the way for our counry to go now or ever. no matter what chimp says.
p.s.
please please dont think even most americans are like these guys. the conservatives here go nuts when they smell blood, standard false partiotic buffoonery mostly but well intentioned if you can imagin the concept, you guys don't have this in your countrys?
You seem to miss the point of my post entirely. When the US puts it's faith in the UN who exactly is it putting its faith in? A group of honest and moral governments who vote for what is right for the world? NO It is a collection of dictatorships, corrupt third world African banana republics and human rights abusers. That is the point. The US should base its decisions on what is best for the US, what is best for NATO, what is best for the west, what is best for the rest of the world and finally what is in the UN's interests. In that order.
Regarding what the euro-weenies like France and Germany do. I think I will make a new thread explaining to our european friends why they are constantly undermineing the US on the Iraq issue. Since not one of them seems to realize why they are doing it.
-
Im pretty shure i understand what you mean. but as long and we dont have a public reason to invade iraq (like he has nukes having the chem weapons we sold him wont do in my mind)
othewise the whole thing is folly.
-
I think I will make a new thread explaining to our european friends why they are constantly undermineing the US on the Iraq issue. Since not one of them seems to realize why they are doing it.
Oh please condescend to do so! We are not worthy to reach our own conclusions in defiance of US opinion! Save us from ourselves and our unenlightened opinions! In the name of all things holy do it quickly!
That's a particularly insulting attitude, Habu, and might go a long way to explain why many Americans are tarred with the particular brush of arrogance. I hope you can see that.
I think Bounder had a good handle on your view of the world - one which you haven't actually rebutted.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
Im pretty shure i understand what you mean. but as long and we dont have a public reason to invade iraq (like he has nukes having the chem weapons we sold him wont do in my mind)
othewise the whole thing is folly.
1. I have yet to see any documentation or OFFICIAL accusation that the US sold chem weaps to Iraq. The US (and many other European states) sold equiptment that could have been used for research purposes - the Iraqi's instead decieded that chemical and biological agents were of more value. When the US found out what these supplies were being used for - shipments stopped.
2. I think the issue here is not whether or not Saddam has a chemical/biological weapons store - its obvious he did/does/will - the issue here is that Iraq was obliged by the United Nations to unveil all chemical/nuclear/biological weapons and disarm. Not only is he not cooperating with inspectors, but he is not disarming. The UN is not enforcing this - somehow the US is getting a bad rap for following through on the UN's resolution. If the UN does not enforce their own resolutions - what good is the body?
-
Who needs the UN?
-
1. I have yet to see any documentation or OFFICIAL accusation that the US sold chem weaps to Iraq. The US (and many other European states) sold equiptment that could have been used for research purposes - the Iraqi's instead decieded that chemical and biological agents were of more value. When the US found out what these supplies were being used for - shipments stopped.
I think it's naive to think the West, including the US, was selling these 'dual purpose' technologies to Iraq for innocent purposes given the daily use of chemical weapons, by Iraq, against Iran. Here's some Senate proceedings. They are long, but quite interesting:
How Saddam Happened (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Oh please condescend to do so! We are not worthy to reach our own conclusions in defiance of US opinion! Save us from ourselves and our unenlightened opinions! In the name of all things holy do it quickly!
That's a particularly insulting attitude, Habu, and might go a long way to explain why many Americans are tarred with the particular brush of arrogance. I hope you can see that.
I think Bounder had a good handle on your view of the world - one which you haven't actually rebutted.
I am not an American. I support them in this case because Saddam is a mad man and he should not be allowed the latitude to endanger the whole world with his madness. He has tried to have the President of the US assinated. What better proof of his He has the money and expertise to develop weapons of mass destruction and he has the track record to actually give them to terrorists.
Bounders post is infantile. Not worth a reply.
France and Germany's position on the Iraq issue have nothing to do with the facts of the situation and everything to do with their domestic politics in the case of Germany and the attempt to try and appear important by defying the US in the case of France. France has a long history of doing this.
-
You're stating the obvious - of course they are bowing to public opinion, whereas Britain and Spain et al are flying in the face of it.
-
Sorry Euros, my countrymen suffer from AIG..
Arrogance Ignorance and Greed deadly combination that
Arrogance = We don’t need no stinkin’ international law.. The law is whatever we say it is cuz we got the biggest and the baddest army in history. Whadda ya gonna do bout it!?
Ignorance = See Habu’s and Rude’s post above... Keep in mind only 17% of Americans polled knew none of the hijackers were Iraqis.
Greed = Two dogs that share the same dogfood bowl, the bigger dog will eat all the dogfood even though it will throw up just to deny the smaller dog any food.
Habu, I wonder if the good people of South Korea would agree with you.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You're stating the obvious - of course they are bowing to public opinion, whereas Britain and Spain et al are flying in the face of it.
Sometimes governments have to make decisions that may not be popular at home but are the right thing to do. That is the true test of any government. Should a people ignore tyranny and evil just because it will not affect them personally? Would it have been right for other countries to ignore the death camps in WW2 because it was not their citizens being exterminated?
Why did Canada fight in WW2? It was never attacked. It probably would not have been greatly affected it Germany won the war. It lost tens of thousands of men and millions and millions of dollars fighting because it was the right thing to do.
Countries that refused to stand up and support the fight deserve to be ignored in the aftermath. It is not only cowardly but immoral as well. And if they are unwilling to join the fight they should at least have the moral courage to not oppose it for reasons of domestic political gain.
-
Soooo.. . . the French claim we are being arrogant and the Germans say we are too militaristic. Anyone besides me see the irony in this???
-
Originally posted by Arfann
Soooo.. . . the French claim we are being arrogant and the Germans say we are too militaristic. Anyone besides me see the irony in this???
frankly .... no
ever used a mirror ?
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Sorry Euros, my countrymen suffer from AIG..
Arrogance Ignorance and Greed deadly combination that
Arrogance = We don’t need no stinkin’ international law.. The law is whatever we say it is cuz we got the biggest and the baddest army in history. Whadda ya gonna do bout it!?
Ignorance = See Habu’s and Rude’s post above... Keep in mind only 17% of Americans polled knew none of the hijackers were Iraqis.
Greed = Two dogs that share the same dogfood bowl, the bigger dog will eat all the dogfood even though it will throw up just to deny the smaller dog any food.
Habu, I wonder if the good people of South Korea would agree with you.
What international law is the US breaking? Please enlighten us.
Ignorance. I am pointing out some facts that most people are not aware of and Rude asked some questions in his post. Do you even know what Ignorance means?
Greed. Ahhh yes. If the US is going to Iraq it is all about the oil. Right? Sorry that argument only carries weight in third world muslim countries.
I have relatives who fought in Korea to prevent the communists from taking over. I am sure the US spends more in Korea in a year to protect it than France spends in a year in foriegn aid.
-
Originally posted by Habu
Countries that refused to stand up and support the fight deserve to be ignored in the aftermath. It is not only cowardly but immoral as well. And if they are unwilling to join the fight they should at least have the moral courage to not oppose it for reasons of domestic political gain.
Kuweit was a good example of aftermatch
Habu have you ever figured why "Roquefort" is so costly in USA ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
Kuweit was a good example of aftermatch
Habu have you ever figured why "Roquefort" is so costly in USA ?
Sorry I do not understand your point. Do you think the people of Kuwait would have been better off being ruled by Saddam?
Did the US go in after the war and rape Iraq of all its oil?
Roquefort is not expensive in the US.
Try to buy US steaks or dairy products in France.
-
Why would you expect the French to do anything else? France stands to make quite a bit of money from Iraq, so their reluctance is rather convenient. France has a long history (they have even supplied nuclear technology and materials to Iraq in the past.)
-
Originally posted by Habu
The US is the greatest democracy in the world.
Start again. Think carefully: The greatest democracy in the world? I think not. Some place with proportional representation, a few more parties actually getting representation, and (here's a wild idea) a directly elected president would be much better qualified. There should be lots of public referrendums too. Maybe Switzerland?
Here's your choice for "greatest democracy in the world" in action:
In first place with 47.9% of the vote, GW Bush
In second place with the larger 48.4% of the vote, Al Gore.
Verry democratic. :rolleyes:
Not that the US hasn't got a lot going for it, in the fields of the constitution and citizen's rights (mind you, only 40 years ago it had a form of apartheid going on in some states). All things considered, it's nowhere near "greatest democracy" status.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Start again. Think carefully: The greatest democracy in the world? I think not. Some place with proportional representation, a few more parties actually getting representation, and (here's a wild idea) a directly elected president would be much better qualified. There should be lots of public referrendums too. Maybe Switzerland?
Here's your choice for "greatest democracy in the world" in action:
In first place with 47.9% of the vote, GW Bush
In second place with the larger 48.4% of the vote, Al Gore.
Verry democratic. :rolleyes:
Not that the US hasn't got a lot going for it, in the fields of the constitution and citizen's rights (mind you, only 40 years ago it had a form of apartheid going on in some states). All things considered, it's nowhere near "greatest democracy" status.
Sorry proportional represantation does not work, it leads to fractured weak governments like in Isreal.
In a party system it is possible to win the general election but come behind in the popular vote. It is not conspiracy, it is just the nature of demographics.
The last election was close but GWB won. And he won the recounts.
If it is not the greatest democracy then tell me what is? Sorry Switzerland has done little to stand up for freedom and democracy in the internation arena in the past 100 years. That is not their fault, they are just not big enough nor powerful enough to do so.
The US is a super power and it wields its power carefully. It is not afraid to fight when it sees the need to. Imagine the world without the US.
-
Originally posted by Habu
Sorry proportional represantation does not work, it leads to fractured weak governments like in Isreal.
Or Australia, Denmark, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden... etc etc. Lots of weak fractured governments around the world, eh? One price you have to pay for actual democracy is that people have several different opinions. If you're really interested in having a strong government, try communism or fascism - democracy is not for you.In a party system it is possible to win the general election but come behind in the popular vote. It is not conspiracy, it is just the nature of demographics. The last election was close but GWB won. And he won the recounts.
Did I say anything about conspiracies or recounts? No. It comes down to bad modelling - the electoral college badly modelled the opinion of the American people. Or to do away with all the semantics: more people voted for the loser than the winner. The system is not representative of the majority opinion - in short it is undemocratic. No conspiracy, no recount nonsense required. Saying it's "just the nature of demographics" does not magically make it the fact that it is a unrepresentative system disappear. Does GWB rule demographically? No. He governs the whole of the US.
A parable to make it easy for you: reality = public opinion, the flight model = the electoral system, the sim = government. You say "This is the best flight model in the world" I say "but the flight model doesn't work because in reality, the Mustang should go at 425 mph at 20k, but in the sim it only goes 300 mph." Your reply is "The flight model is wrong, but only because that's how the flight model works."
If it is not the greatest democracy then tell me what is? Sorry Switzerland has done little to stand up for freedom and democracy in the internation arena in the past 100 years. That is not their fault, they are just not big enough nor powerful enough to do so.
The US is a super power and it wields its power carefully. It is not afraid to fight when it sees the need to.
Ahh I see the crux of your argument now - you mean the US is a democracy with the largest, most active military. The country with the biggest stick. To my mind these qualifications seem less about being "the greatest democracy" and rather more to do with being "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today", as Dr King put it. I took "greatest democracy in the world" as meaning the country with the form of government which best represents the wishes of all it's people. So the fact that Switzerland has "done little to stand up for freedom and democracy in the international arena in the past 100 years" is utterly irrelevant in determining how democratic it is - only the extent to which the Swiss government did what the Swiss people wanted it to do is relevant.
-
Should a people ignore tyranny and evil just because it will not affect them personally?
You talk like Iraq is virgin territory as far as Western foreign policy goes. We supported him, we armed him, we let him repress his people and murder his opponents. We did this for decades and suddenly NOW we complain of human rights violations? Come on, I know you don't believe that crap.
Would it have been right for other countries to ignore the death camps in WW2 because it was not their citizens being exterminated?
The extermination of the Jews was of little concern to the Allies at the time. We were allied with Stalin, for god's sake, the most able mass murderer the world has ever seen. All that mattered was the defeat Hitler - the persecution of the Jews did not drive the Allies to fight.
Countries that refused to stand up and support the fight deserve to be ignored in the aftermath. It is not only cowardly but immoral as well. And if they are unwilling to join the fight they should at least have the moral courage to not oppose it for reasons of domestic political gain.
Again you make allusions to WW2. This is not WW2. To compare it with that conflict is laughable at best, disrespectful to those that gave their lives at worst. Within 6 years of coming to absolute power, Hitler had entered into a war bent on global domination. Saddam has had 30 years. The policy of containment appears to be working.
I'm against the war until more evidence is given - I'll be very interested in what Powell has to say in his address to the UN. He might convince me, he might not.
-
Originally posted by straffo
frankly .... no
ever used a mirror ?
I rest my case.
-
Originally posted by Habu
Sorry I do not understand your point. Do you think the people of Kuwait would have been better off being ruled by Saddam?
Did the US go in after the war and rape Iraq of all its oil?
Roquefort is not expensive in the US.
Try to buy US steaks or dairy products in France.
My point is : it was pretty hard to sell anything in koweit after the war ... especially when non-american ... even with better and cheapest product ... it was hard to face "free market advocate" American saying 'to bad you lose that market again" when they were just giving abnormal quantity of $$$ dope and girls to some kuweity "muslim".
Yes it's hard to swallow and about 10 year after it's still hard for me.
next question:
Why didn't the US go after Iraq after the war ?
It's "ENDIGUEMENT" strategie at work ... it worked in Yurop so the USA used the very same technic (Iran is near Iraq you know).
Last time I checked Roquefort was pretty expensive just because of USA protectionism ... perhaps it changed
Some product autorized in USA for meat production are illegal in France any farmer caught with such proctect can be sentenced to jail.
Why should we modify our law just to authorize some product which have not been proven to be safe for the health of the customer you can do whatever you want to American customer but not ours.
Btw I tasted a nice Californian wine last W-E and it was good even coming from a "start rant" : fediddleed fachist war addict oversea country (*)
(*) take-it easy it's a joke ;)
-
Originally posted by straffo
...Why should have we authorized over fly our soil ?
Only to please the US ?
Sorry but I don't expect my governement to rick life of some citizen only to please another country .
Even a friendly one can french Air Force operate freely on US soil ?
Answer (obvious) : NO
It's called sovereignty you asked we answered : NO
Straffo, get your facts straight, the French had up until two months ago a squadron of fighters training out of Tampa's MacDill AFB. Don't see to many training units of ours based in France. One other thing, I lived for 6 months in France in the late 80's while I played hockey. I was impressed by the beauty and history of the country. But as for the people, I was most unimpressed with the arrogance and blind eyed views of most of the population with the exception of those living in Normandy and a few Parisians. There I found some of the most wonderful people, (who mind you did not have too) were most grateful to visit hospitality onto me as an American whose own relatives died liberating your country. Ohh, and oui je parles francais, mes il y a un long temps quand je utilises sas, and je me comprehend il est mauvais maeintenant.
I think it's best that France be forever thankful to the British and US for remaining an independant country, but thats just an opinion.
-
My wifes uncle died in WW2. He was a tail gunner in a Wellington. He is buried in England but died on the way to a mission over France.
When I was in France I went to the tourist office in Paris, the one right on the Champs de Leaize (pardon my spelling but I really don't care if I get it right)
I asked them if they had a map to the Vimy Memorial and for directions.
They had no idea what I was talking about.
But that is a different topic altogether.
-
uh huh
Tronsky
-
Lets not forget why the UN was setup in the first place and secondly invading Iraq without UN approval will therefore mean US,UK,Australia and whoever else is on the bandwagon is breaking International Law.
Given that, it will surely be the start of the end for the UN and in my opinion the world will be worse off.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I think it's best that France be forever thankful to the British and US for remaining an independant country, but thats just an opinion.
And presumably, by extension, exercise its independence by doing exactly what the US tells it to do? ;)
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Lets not forget why the UN was setup in the first place and secondly invading Iraq without UN approval will therefore mean US,UK,Australia and whoever else is on the bandwagon is breaking International Law.
Given that, it will surely be the start of the end for the UN and in my opinion the world will be worse off.
Ya know, I really hate to say two wrongs make a right, but that Iraqi leader has been breaking international law for too long, I guess we should just wait till Mr. Hussein has a working nuke, or has figured out to recreate the bubonic plague on steroids. He has already shown his capacity for using restraint with weapons of mass destruction even on his own people. He is a maniac, that will diddly the world up as soon as he has the chance. Let's take that capacity away from him. Your idea of leaving that dog to lay sounds like just the sort of plan some liberal pansy would come up with, are you sure you are not Weazel in disguise??? Here is something I think even a liberal can imagine, seeings they think we live in a diddlying utopian society. Imagine you have a lovely 7 yr old daughter, and a convicted child molester moves in next door, and spends his days building up sexual torture devices for children in his garage, wouldn't you think it to be smart to take him out before he hurts her? (Yes I am comparing Sadaam to a child molester, they are on the same level) The point is Sadaam will strike out when he has the capability as would that Child molestor. The best defense is a terrific offense, thus said, Sadaam, you best head off to exhile if you do not want to go to a war crimes tribunal at the wonderfully corrupt UN.
As for the UN, it is time that US funded experiment in giving the 3rd World a voice ended. It's a failure, and I for one will continue to vote against anymore funding of that organisation as I have for the past 15 years. Only now does it appear our administration realises that the UN is a 3rd World soap box that serves no point other than allow dictators and former warlords a chance to voice there imbecilic opinions.
Originally posted by -dead-
And presumably, by extension, exercise its independence by doing exactly what the US tells it to do?
Yeah, I seem to feel that is about the size of it. Several million British and almost a million Americans lie dead from guarateeing them their freedom during two World Wars. Wars that could have been prevented if they had had a better back bone. I think they should do exactly what we or the British suggest on the world scene, lest their muddled policies start World War 3.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Yeah, I seem to feel that is about the size of it. Several million British and almost a million Americans lie dead from guarateeing them their freedom during two World Wars. Wars that could have been prevented if they had had a better back bone. I think they should do exactly what we or the British suggest on the world scene, lest their muddled policies start World War 3.
Were France to follow such a policy, all those people who died guaranteeing France's freedom would truly have died in vain. Freedom is unconditional, or it just isn't freedom. As you yourself point out - the British & Americans lie dead from guaranteeing France's freedom[/b] NOT their cooperation. IMHO, suggesting otherwise sullies their sacrifice with an ulterior motive that runs completely counter to the freedom you pay lip service to.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Sorry Euros, my countrymen suffer from AIG..
Arrogance Ignorance and Greed deadly combination that
Arrogance = We don’t need no stinkin’ international law.. The law is whatever we say it is cuz we got the biggest and the baddest army in history. Whadda ya gonna do bout it!?
Ignorance = See Habu’s and Rude’s post above... Keep in mind only 17% of Americans polled knew none of the hijackers were Iraqis.
Greed = Two dogs that share the same dogfood bowl, the bigger dog will eat all the dogfood even though it will throw up just to deny the smaller dog any food.
Habu, I wonder if the good people of South Korea would agree with you.
Heyas 10bears....
Now, being ignorant according to definition, is being unaware of the facts.
If you believe me to be ignorant of the UN and its effectiveness, then why don't you share with me what substantive good it has accomplished, especially relating to Iraq?
I await your well informed answer.
-
Bodhi wrote:
He has already shown his capacity for using restraint with weapons of mass destruction even on his own people.
WHAT!!! he used weapons of mass destruction on his own people?... Are you sure about that?... I recently read from a CIA analysis that was there at the time it was Iranian gas used on Iraqie troops during a battle... the Kurds were just in the cross fire. You can choose to believe the propaganda if you want.. I choose to believe the CIA on the ground at the time.
From Rudy Tuesday..
If you believe me to be ignorant of the UN and its effectiveness, then why don't you share with me what substantive good it has accomplished, especially relating to Iraq?
Fine, I'll start w/ Iraq... 1991 U.N. resolution mandating Iraq remove it's troops from Kuwait. 19 nations participated militarly and was a mission success.
Lets go back.. 1950 U.N. stopped the spread of communism to the south of Korea. A little snag there but by and large a mission success.
Numerious humanitarian/peacekeeping missions throughout the 60' and 70s highlighted on their web page. More recent missions would include Timor, Baklans, and Somolia.
I suggest you re-read what Gixer wrote above, I could only add to that by asking what do you propose this international body of Law be replaced with.. The guy with the biggest stick? Please try and remember the reason the U.N. was created in the first place.
Rude I apologize for infering ignorance.. but you have all this information at your fingertips don't rely on only mainstream media or talk radio.. When you play chess you don't look at only one side of the board.. In Aces you don't just look straight ahead.. You know that.. whoa!
BTW Gixer, I have an interesting film of our 1vs1 night fight.. 12 minutes long... you won!.. I could send it to ya if you want ;)
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Bodhi wrote:
WHAT!!! he used weapons of mass destruction on his own people?... Are you sure about that?... I recently read from a CIA analysis that was there at the time it was Iranian gas used on Iraqie troops during a battle... the Kurds were just in the cross fire. You can choose to believe the propaganda if you want.. I choose to believe the CIA on the ground at the time.
From Rudy Tuesday..
Fine, I'll start w/ Iraq... 1991 U.N. resolution mandating Iraq remove it's troops from Kuwait. 19 nations participated militarly and was a mission success.
Lets go back.. 1950 U.N. stopped the spread of communism to the south of Korea. A little snag there but by and large a mission success.
Numerious humanitarian/peacekeeping missions throughout the 60' and 70s highlighted on their web page. More recent missions would include Timor, Baklans, and Somolia.
I suggest you re-read what Gixer wrote above, I could only add to that by asking what do you propose this international body of Law be replaced with.. The guy with the biggest stick? Please try and remember the reason the U.N. was created in the first place.
Rude I apologize for infering ignorance.. but you have all this information at your fingertips don't rely on only mainstream media or talk radio.. When you play chess you don't look at only one side of the board.. In Aces you don't just look straight ahead.. You know that.. whoa!
BTW Gixer, I have an interesting film of our 1vs1 night fight.. 12 minutes long... you won!.. I could send it to ya if you want ;)
I tend to believe it was the coalition armed forces which motivated Iraq to exit Kuwait, not the UN sanctioning of that action.
That being said, I don't stand for the abolition of internation law but rather a legitimate instrument to enforce those laws....without the latter, the laws are only words on paper kinda like the 17 broken resolutions since the gulf war.
As to other achievements, they are few for such a body and the time during which it has existed....I'm certain their website espouses their value in the world....I just don't agree with that assessment nor do I want the UN in this nations business.
Still, your opinion is just as valid as mine and no apology necessary...I'm not one to think anyone would truly insult me without at least meeting me first:)
-
Originally posted by Habu
Take your facist comment and shove it up your arse.
Hey Habu my cute little ball licker u know what a questionmark ("?") is or is this beyond ur intellectual capacity?
-
Originally posted by Duedel
Hey Habu my cute little ball licker u know what a questionmark ("?") is or is this beyond ur intellectual capacity?
Cute ball licker? Are you one of those fat middle aged german men I read about who get busted all the time by the Thai police? How do you get there now that Niki Lauda's airline no longer runs those special junkets?
-
Hehe sweety does this mean u are 10 years old? Now i understand ur absence of knowledgeability. Thanks for clearing this up.
-
Originally posted by Duedel
Hehe sweety does this mean u are 10 years old? Now i understand ur absence of knowledgeability. Thanks for clearing this up.
What does the fact that you like 10 year old boys have to do with the UN?
-
Habu its obvious that u like the thought that someone else might be sharing ur interests but I'm sorry its not me.
Nonetheless I dont like ur thoughts about the germans, the french and the UN. Furtheron ur neo conservative attitude pisses me of. But enough of personal abuses this leads to nothing.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Straffo, get your facts straight, the French had up until two months ago a squadron of fighters training out of Tampa's MacDill AFB.
Were they bombing Canada ?
I guess No :p
Don't see to many training units of ours based in France.
Not anymore but when France was in OTAN it was quiet more frequent :)
One other thing, I lived for 6 months in France in the late 80's while I played hockey. I was impressed by the beauty and history of the country. But as for the people, I was most unimpressed with the arrogance and blind eyed views of most of the population with the exception of those living in Normandy and a few Parisians. There I found some of the most wonderful people, (who mind you did not have too) were most grateful to visit hospitality onto me as an American whose own relatives died liberating your country. Ohh, and oui je parles francais, mes il y a un long temps quand je utilises sas, and je me comprehend il est mauvais maeintenant.
We have our share of ass-hole too :)
If ever you come back I'll offer you a drink without any trouble :)
I think it's best that France be forever thankful to the British and US for remaining an independant country, but thats just an opinion.
We are thankful (at least I am) but shall we allways agree ?
I don't think so.
-
Originally posted by Habu
My wifes uncle died in WW2. He was a tail gunner in a Wellington. He is buried in England but died on the way to a mission over France.
When I was in France I went to the tourist office in Paris, the one right on the Champs de Leaize (pardon my spelling but I really don't care if I get it right)
I asked them if they had a map to the Vimy Memorial and for directions.
They had no idea what I was talking about.
But that is a different topic altogether.
Well ... when asking your way in Paris it's likely that you will end in Italia or Germany ...
If you think I'm arrogant ... that's because you never spoke to a Parisian ... ther rule me easily :(
In fact for all other French the Parisian are ARROGANT
And when you look at the news you allways have the point of view of the Parisian ... not the pov of the average french citizen.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Were France to follow such a policy, all those people who died guaranteeing France's freedom would truly have died in vain. Freedom is unconditional, or it just isn't freedom. As you yourself point out - the British & Americans lie dead from guaranteeing France's freedom NOT their cooperation. IMHO, suggesting otherwise sullies their sacrifice with an ulterior motive that runs completely counter to the freedom you pay lip service to. [/B]
cheers :)
I truly agree
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Were France to follow such a policy, all those people who died guaranteeing France's freedom would truly have died in vain. Freedom is unconditional, or it just isn't freedom. As you yourself point out - the British & Americans lie dead from guaranteeing France's freedom NOT their cooperation. IMHO, suggesting otherwise sullies their sacrifice with an ulterior motive that runs completely counter to the freedom you pay lip service to. [/B]
I don't think Bodhi was suggesting other than political coercion. Of course France is a sovereign nation and can do what they want within their borders. Just as the US, and anyone else, will be morally free to ignore their call for help in any future crisis.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Of course France is a sovereign nation and can do what they want within their borders. Just as the US, and anyone else, will be morally free to ignore their call for help in any future crisis.
But you know America would never do that .
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I don't think Bodhi was suggesting other than political coercion. Of course France is a sovereign nation and can do what they want within their borders. Just as the US, and anyone else, will be morally free to ignore their call for help in any future crisis.
You've already done custom coercicion so what's forbid you to do the same as usual ?
I know the answer : free market ... but only for US.
-
Interesting thread. :)
I don't want my country, the USA, to depend on a show of hands in the UN to decide on critical matters of national security that effect our country, our loved ones, our home.
I want my country to do whatever it has to do to stay secure. The only dissenters the US Government should heed is the dissent of its own people, and its allies.
What business does a country like North Korea, Iraq, Libya, etc have in voting on matters that effect US national security?
UN member countries aren't even required to obey their own resolutions. That says something about an organization.