Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Krusher on February 05, 2003, 07:22:06 PM
-
To get 50 votes in the United Nations.
After all the European Union gets multiple votes.
-
For the U.S. to withdraw from the U.N.
Reason being, as easymo put it on another forum:
"The reason the founders built gridlock into the system was so no individual, or party, could just take over. And do whatever they like.
As long as the Prez has to deal with the people on the other side of the isle. He effectively has to deal with us, the people. What they have been doing, starting with Korea, is bully the UN into sanctioning some action they want. Then in turn using that sanction to bully congress, and us.
We need to start shutting these end runs down. We need to get the diddly out of the UN."
-
So why have we sent troops to Haiti, Somalia and Serbia again?
-
The European Union is not a soverign state, it is an international governmental organization. Only recognized soverign states are voting members of the UN.
While I can understand why a lot of people (at least in the US) are upset with the UN, it is important to remember that the UN is an important body. Everyone seems to be upset because member states have voiced opposing views towards the US views, but this is an IMPORTANT part of the UN (IMHO). The UN's key role is getting together a diverse group of countries with a diverse group of viewpoints to discuss issues that can be controversial. This can help countries to both undestand where they are coming from and to know how to deal with one another. AND it can help us to understand what we need to do to convince others that we are doing the right thing.
The UN also helps to bring important matters to the attention of most of the international community in an expeditious manner. The key example of this would be Sec. State Powell's recent briefing to the UN. Without the ability to go to the UN, the State Department would have to individually go to each country to present the case and the evidence. This way Powell only has to go to one place, and the whole world gets to watch what he says. I don't know a better way of getting our point accross than that.
Remember: the UN has no power unto itself; it has to get the cooperation of other member nations to supply it troops, money, food/medical aid, ect. All decisions made by the UN are, in fact, made by member nations who agree to go along. The UN has no means to enforce it's measures by itself. It is, in other words, more of a consensus building organization, NOT an enforcement or lawmaking organiztion (since it has no independent means of forcing other parties to do what it asks).
-
As I posted in another thread, I want the US to leave the UN as well. Let France take over funding the UN.
"It is now reasonable to ask whether the United States should now or on any other occasion subordinate vital national interests to a show of hands by nations who do not share our interests"
France should no longer be considered our ally (http://newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/2/4/171345)
I don't want to ever go before the UN again when our national interests are at stake. The UN is useless, why should we need there approval? Screw the UN.
I want the US to leave the UN and stop all funding for the UN. I want all our international aid to any country to be conditional on their support and alliance to the US.
I'm tired of all the US food aid we give the world being labeled "UN" food aid. We pay for it, we should have the US flag on all the food and aid we give. If those countries don't like it, then they don't get our aid.
Ahhhh, feel so much better now! :)
-
(http://www.raf303.org/mietla/france.jpg)
-
The cartoon is funny!
:)
-
Remember: the UN has no power unto itself; it has to get the cooperation of other member nations to supply it troops, money, food/medical aid, ect.
Change that to :
Remember: the UN has no power unto itself; it has to get the cooperation of the UNITED STATES to supply it troops, money, food/medical aid, ect.
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
Change that to :
Remember: the UN has no power unto itself; it has to get the cooperation of the UNITED STATES to supply it troops, money, food/medical aid, ect.
Damn straight ! Screw the UN. We need to leave the UN, screw them.
-
Never knew stupidity could condensate to something touchable, now I've seen it all.
-
Originally posted by mietla
So why have we sent troops to Haiti, Somalia and Serbia again?
Clinton needed media focus elsewhere.
Compare US domestic political scandals/potential scandals with US involvement in war overseas during the 92-00 time period.
-
Wow, the post has gone on this long without a response from Habu? Can someone go check to make sure he didn't fall over dead after spending 88 hours straight in front of his computer bashing France and Germany?
j/k Habu :D
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Clinton needed media focus elsewhere.
Compare US domestic political scandals/potential scandals with US involvement in war overseas during the 92-00 time period.
Tsk tsk, you're beginning to sound like Grünherz's compulsary 'I have the all-consuming need to fit in with the conservative, patriotic and true american right-wingers by whom I so desperately wish to be accepted'-routine. Any plans of getting a green card soon?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
IF the US leaves the UN you are of course welcome to withdraw you funding, but at least pay what you owe them now. The rest of the UN would have to compensate for the loss of the USA contribution, shouldn't be too difficult.
I'm pretty sure that what France and Germany, and several other world war nations, owe the US would offset what the US owes the UN.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Clinton needed media focus elsewhere.
Compare US domestic political scandals/potential scandals with US involvement in war overseas during the 92-00 time period.
Concocting a pseudo connection from the time frame means nothing.
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
Change that to :
Remember: the UN has no power unto itself; it has to get the cooperation of the UNITED STATES to supply it troops, money, food/medical aid, ect.
I can't the thread about arrogance ... your post should fit nicely.
-
Arrogance? Don't think so, I really don't give a toejam. Just speaking the truth. Without the United States, the United Nations would be even more worthless.
-
We obviouly don't have the same definition :
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
Arrogance \Ar"ro*gance\, n. [F., fr. L. arrogantia, fr. arrogans. See {Arrogant}.] The act or habit of arrogating, or making undue claims in an overbearing manner; that species of pride which consists in exorbitant claims of rank, dignity, estimation, or power, or which exalts the worth or importance of the person to an undue degree; proud contempt of others; lordliness; haughtiness; self-assumption; presumption.
I hate not you for her proud arrogance. --Shak.
Syn: Haughtiness; hauteur; assumption; lordliness; presumption; pride; disdain; insolence; conceit; conceitedness. See {Haughtiness}.
From WordNet (r) 1.7 (wn)
arrogance n : overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors [syn: {haughtiness}, {highhandedness}, {lordliness}]
-
A quote from the European Commission President Romano Prodi
"Once Europe has a common voice, it will be the only one that has to be listened to in the world," he said last week.
It looks pretty clear that the EU should only have one vote or that the USA should have 50.
-
People might hear the euro whining - but what are euro rutabagas gonna do when they dont listen... :D
-
F#CK UN!!! [short and simple] :mad: :mad: :mad:
-
Originally posted by Krusher
A quote from the European Commission President Romano Prodi
"Once Europe has a common voice, it will be the only one that has to be listened to in the world," he said last week.
It looks pretty clear that the EU should only have one vote or that the USA should have 50.
Y think that you misinterpreted his sentence IMO what he wanted to say was : When we will united we will rule you.
-
Quote:
"Y think that you misinterpreted his sentence IMO what he wanted to say was : When we will united we will rule you."
ROFL!!! You and whose army?? Armies cost money. Europe would rather spend money on Socialist welfare not defense, and would rather leave the unpleasant proletarian task of policing a murderous world to the peasants in the USA.
Europe ain't gonna "rule" anybody. "United" Europe?? Fat chance..........
Cabby
-
you realize every post you make cabby has the exact opposite effect you intend ? no you wouldent i guess.
-
Why withdraw? We'll simply destroy it from within. We hold a veto too. If the french obstructionism prevents the UN from being relavent when its really needed, then I suggest we show them what obstructionism REALLY is. We veto everything from now on. Everything. No, I mean e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g. From the smallest "send food to batswanna" to the most momentous "send peace keeping troops to hugahunkia". Veto. Veto. Veto. Wait....maybe....nevermind; VETO! Paralyze it. Shackle it. Break its back. 5 or ten years of that and those flea infested foriegn ambassedors won't even bother showing up anymore. No override possible for our veto. We won't even let the most trivial vote pass. Shut the squeak down flat. And laugh about it to their faces the whole time.
That would be OHHHHHH so much more satisfying than merely quiting.
Wab
-
Just some thoughs, all in disarray.. Im tired..
Seriously , even USA is not in position to make all rules of the game. Diplomacy and treaties are a nice word for :" I´ll bend over now if I can bang u later", and your president has done some serious treaty cancellations during his career (Kioto treaty , ABM) so there may be the basic reason to be anti-war. Just to show that we can decide something too.
Also European countries have seen war. Not in near future, but a few decades ago. The US mainland has seen fighting about 140 years ago. You may get a different point of view when lots of your civs get killed. The US of A loses mostly troops, which is also bad. So from there also can come that anti-war thinking for Europeans.
You say here that you should F**k the UN.. well do that. That just shows that you don´t even want to give way to other options. My way or the highway... Well separatism has been tried 60 years ago, didn´t work out too well.
IMHO , US should concentrate more on NK than on Irak.. Which one has publicly said to be ready to launch a pre-emptive strike?
Irak has been banged to the number 2 hole for over 10 yrs, theres nothing anymore.. even lubricant, oil , is getting short on supply..
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
Arrogance? Don't think so, I really don't give a toejam. Just speaking the truth. Without the United States, the United Nations would be even more worthless.
Yeah it'd be World Peace by Committee...
Heres an idea. Make those that broker peace deals financially responsible. If France wants no war with Iraq, make them sign a CONTRACT that if Iraq develops illegal weapons then France has to pay for : future weapons inspections; any conflict required to bring Iraq back into line (including arms buildup like the US has done recently to bully Iraq into complying); any damages incurred by Iraq (ie bombing Kuwait); and be legally responsible for Iraq's actions.
-
Diplomacy and treaties are a nice word for :" I´ll bend over now if I can bang u later", and your president has done some serious treaty cancellations during his career (Kioto treaty , ABM) so there may be the basic reason to be anti-war. Just to show that we can decide something too
We never ratified Kyoto, so we therefore didn't break it.
Duh.
-
your president has done some serious treaty cancellations during his career (Kioto treaty , ABM)
Kyoto was never ratified.
The ABM treated allowed either country to withdraw with 6 months notice.
-
The UN should be disbanded, the charter voided.
If the UN cannot see it's way clear to remove a mass murderer's regime like Saddams then there is no hope for the organization in it's current form.
-
If saddam gets longer range missles going, guess what country still won't be hit by them.
That's right, he'll be more able to hit you guys before US but if you want to be anti war and give him that capability, great show of power before he murders your people.
I think we should pull out of the UN, take the money that we spend in the UN and put it towards defense spending and see how that goes.
Originally posted by LLv34 Jarsci
so there may be the basic reason to be anti-war. Just to show that we can decide something too.
-
Originally posted by LLv34 Jarsci
IMHO , US should concentrate more on NK than on Irak.. Which one has publicly said to be ready to launch a pre-emptive strike?
There's still a chance to peacefully and diplomatically resolve the conflict with NK. NK is currently being dealt with diplomatically to circumvent a nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula.
The chance to diplomaticaly resolve Iraq's non-compliance with the UN left the building several years ago. To this day he is still not complying with the UN. You can sit there and believe you have brought peace to the region by allowing Iraq to continue to give the UN the run around and not comply, during that time he will still be producing chemical and biological weapons, and still be seeking nuclear material, bombs or missles.
When he feels he has enough, he will be sure to use them. You can count on that.
No amount of UN inspections will stop Saddam, they haven't for 12 years and they won't tommorrow. It's end game for Saddam.
-SW
-
I don´t say that you should not attack Iraq. Basically its a war to remove Saddam.(and install US friendly government to supply US cheap oil..) So why go in with a full force when good intel and one 2000lbs laser guided bomb would make the job much cheaper and losses would be minimal... And Saddam-wannabes run out faster than bombs.
Of course your weapons best-before day may be coming shortly, so there is another reason for full live-fire excercise.
Mostly US nationals are pissed off about us Europeans not joining your crusade. Mostly Europeans are pissed off about your governments we-do-what-we-want attitude. While in fact everyone agrees that Saddam should go, this whole Iraq thing has become a pissing contest between US and Europe, and main point has been lost during that.. only guy winning is Mr. S.
Oh.. And NK has weapons, proven capability to make nukes and manpower, and then you go diplomatic.
Saddam prolly has some nasty bacters somewhere, but everything else he´s missing, and there you go with a bang.
?
-
Mostly US nationals are pissed off about us Europeans not joining your crusade.
Yup.. seems like Europe would rather keep him in power in exchange for lucrative financial kickbacks instead of kickin his bellybutton out and taking your chances on a US/UK brokered regime that would (I hope) have a long memory regarding where the petitioning nations pre-ouster politics are concerned.
You'd think the French would rememeber that Germany was Frances largest trading partner pre-1940.
At least Britan remembers that appeasement is a ticket to a betrayal.
-
Originally posted by LLv34 Jarsci
(and install US friendly government to supply US cheap oil..)
Ah yes... I always enjoy reading this line. It makes a fantastic anti-war poster, but the truth it holds is as much as Clinton's "not having sexual relations with that woman."
So why go in with a full force when good intel and one 2000lbs laser guided bomb would make the job much cheaper and losses would be minimal... And Saddam-wannabes run out faster than bombs.
You know where Saddam is? Does your government? Does anyone other than Saddam and his cohorts? We never know where Saddam is. We did during the Gulf War, but since assassinating country leaders is a big international "no no", it just can't happen.
Mostly US nationals are pissed off about us Europeans not joining your crusade. Mostly Europeans are pissed off about your governments we-do-what-we-want attitude. While in fact everyone agrees that Saddam should go, this whole Iraq thing has become a pissing contest between US and Europe, and main point has been lost during that.. only guy winning is Mr. S.
I'm not pissed about Europeans not joining this "crusade"... but I don't think it's very intelligent of them to stand in the way either. And you're right, Saddam is the only one winning. He's winning more time. He's been winning more time, hell he's effectively kicked the living toejam out of the UN for 12 years. He's winning alright, and he will continue to win until he's taken out. You see another option? No one, not one person in any country, has offered a better solution other than "lets give Saddam more time".. and "let the inspections continue". That option has been played out going on 12 years now, got a better one?
Oh.. And NK has weapons, proven capability to make nukes and manpower, and then you go diplomatic.
Saddam prolly has some nasty bacters somewhere, but everything else he´s missing, and there you go with a bang.
NK has proven that they will turn the Korean peninsula into a glowing crater visible from the far reaches of space. You condemn the US for taking the diplomatic route, but then you'd condemn the US even more for going the military route because there'd be a million dead Koreans and thousands of people from other nationalities.
And there you admit it Saddam prolly has some nasty biological agents, and possibly chemical... and he's still pursuing the nuclear option.
So that in itself proves diplomatic relations and UN inspections haven't been working at all, and are continuing to fail. But you insist taking out Saddam isn't the best option.
So, tell me, what is the best option? To wait and let him grow stronger so instead of a relatively small armed conflict tommorrow, you have a region-wide nuclear conflict 3 or 4 years down the road?
I still have yet to see a better option than waiting till he gets his hands on bigger and better weapons capable of killing off everyone in that entire region.
-SW
-
GScholz why should we have to pay all of what we "owe"?
We have always paid more than any other country plus we supply more food troops and equipment.
Still we are told we "owe" the worthless POS we call the U.N. money.
-
On 30 September 2002, President Bush signed into law the Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, H.R. 1646. Since 1994 no such State Department Authorization Bill has been able to pass Congress, yet this year was different. In the words of Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), the U.S. took “a huge step toward normalizing our relationship with the United Nations” with the recent signing into law of H.R. 1646, because with its passage the United States has made the last of its U.N. arrears payments. With the release of this $244 million sum, representing the third and final arrears payment, the U.S. absolved its debt to the U.N.
Frankly, I don't think we should have paid 'em. Ain't there a "Lemon Law"??
I mean, if it's broke; why in hell should we pay for it??
-
.(and install US friendly government to supply US cheap oil..)
A lot more people than just the US would benefit from Iraq modernizing their oil industry. People like the Iraqis and any nation who imports oil.
-
Originally posted by LLv34 Jarsci
so there may be the basic reason to be anti-war. Just to show that we can decide something too.
Originally posted by LLv34 Jarsci
I don´t say that you should not attack Iraq.
ok, that's 2 minutes I'll never get back.
also funny that it's 'we' when you talk about making a decision but it's 'you' when it comes down to an approved attack on Iraq.
That pretty much illustrates my feelings on the usefulness of 'you'
-
Originally posted by mietla
(http://www.raf303.org/mietla/france.jpg)
ROFL!:D
-
history never repeats itself does it
-
Originally posted by mietla
(http://www.raf303.org/mietla/france.jpg)
the best humor is always ruited in truth :)